Category: Film

  • RR (2007)

    RR (2007)

    Dir. by James Benning

    Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Railroad (with apologies to Wallace Stevens)

    1. As Documentary – The opening shot of RR divides the frame precisely down the middle. A train passes to our left, beginning at a vanishing point in the exact center of the screen, and on the right is a commercial street in a small American town. The road runs parallel with the tracks, and a few small buildings stand on its opposite side. Between the road and the tracks is a gravel area where several cars are parked, each one facing the road.

    I remember these details because the train takes several minutes to pass — time during which we’re allowed to simply study the image. Little changes until, finally, a truck comes driving up the road from the bottom-right corner of the frame and parks in the gravel. However, instead of pulling forward a few feet of the spot and then backing into it, as I would have, the driver saves time by driving directly into the lot, swinging around in a wide arc and then pulling into his spot from behind. That’s when you notice that all of the cars are parked at the same slight angle, that they’ve all followed that same arc, that this is how things are done in this particular town.

    2. As Autobiography – My father is a lifelong model railroader and train enthusiast who grew up in a town much like the one in Benning’s opening shot. Because I was raised in quiet suburbs, the sight or sound of a passing train never went unnoticed. On family vacations, we would go out of our way to see them, and he would patiently describe what we were looking at, snapping photos as he made his way around. Both homes Joanna and I have owned have been within earshot of tracks, so now the sound reminds me of laying in bed with her with the windows open. RR takes as a given that each viewer will share some form of this nostalgia.

    3. As History – In one of the other 40 or so shots that make up RR, Benning takes a high-angle perspective on a rusted trestle spanning a wooded chasm. Even with modern metals and engineering, it’s an impressive feat. But the railroad is 19th century technology, and similar chasms had to be spanned a century-and-a-half ago.

    4. As Visual Field – The day before the screening of RR, in another of the Wavelengths programs, we watched four of T. Marie’s Optra Field films, which use digitally-rendered lines of black and white to create a “visual mantra” that operates on the optic nerve. RR, at some times more that others, achieves the same effect. After watching a long freight train bisect the frame from right to left, for example, I discovered that my eyes had become so conditioned to that movement that, when the train finally exited, the distant landscape would appear to contract and sway for several seconds.

    5. As Economics – Unless I’m mistaken, every train in RR is carrying freight. Perhaps as many as a third are pulling flatbeds loaded with shipping containers that were, presumably, lifted directly from the ships that had, presumably, trekked across the Pacific — all cogs in the machine necessary to bring us our stuff and keep the economy moving. Not coincidentally, we see only one face in the entire film.

    6. As Canvas– While Benning has limited his subject, by and large, to rural areas of the American West here, there are tokens of urban life throughout the film. Nearly every train has been tagged by graffiti artists, and the beauty and variety on display is impressive. A moving gallery.

    7. As Noise

    8. As Music

    9. As Americana — Benning also uses sound collage to invoke the railroad’s place in America’s cultural and political life. I don’t recall every clip, but the three I recognized are: the call of a baseball game (judging by the names I picked out, it would have been a playoff game from the mid-’90s), Eisenhower’s farewell address (with its famous warning against the growing military-industrial complex), and Woody Guthrie singing “This Land is Your Land.”

    10. As Technology – In nearly every shot, the train splices through natural beauty. The film’s formal structure creates multivalent meanings in these images, though. This is human achievement and progress (if such a word can still be used without being overwhelmed by irony), but it’s also loss and tragedy.

    11. As Design – Beauty and affect arise out of great design, I think, when a satisfying tension is achieved between order and disorder. Each gives meaning to the other. Benning’s greatest formal achievement in RR is at the level of individual shot, where he discovers impossible order in every composition. Few still images from the film are available, but I plan to create a couple line-drawing representations and add them here after I get home. He find symmetry, horizons, right angles, and Cubist-like intersections in the unlikeliest of places.

    12. As PedagogyRR would be invaluable in a classroom. Along with teaching us how to look, generally, it teaches the fundamentals of composition, perspective, and montage better than any text I’ve read (not to mention its value as a doorway into discussion of any number of social, historical, and political subjects, as I’ve tried to demonstrate here).

    13. As Farewell to Film – Benning has said RR marks the end of his 30-year career shooting on film. How fitting, then, that his final shot would be of a train coming to a stop. Since the Lumiere’s Arrival of a Train (1895), filmmakers have been fascinated by railroads. It’s even a running theme at TIFF this year, where both Kelly Reichardt’s Wendy and Lucy and Claire Denis’s 35 Rhums feature sequences at rail yards. RR ends with an extreme long shot of a freight train passing through a landscape dominated by massive wind turbines. The train cars, as they stream by, look uncannily like frames of film, and the turbines spin slowly like the reels of a projector. The train comes to a stop as the last few feet of 16mm celluloid work through the mechanism behind us. There are no end credits, so the print in the final seconds is scratched and scarred, a physical reminder of what we’ll lose in our digital century.

  • Revanche and Delta

    Revanche and Delta

    I’ve developed a lazy habit of saying that I don’t particularly care what a film is about; I care what it does formally. But, while well-directed and wonderfully performed, the standout feature of Gotz Spielmann’s Revanche is the story, which, particularly over the last 80 minutes, is perfectly constructed. Borrowing from scattershot genre conventions (lovers on the run, an escape to the country, the Madonna whore), Revanche is the kind of taut, thinking-adult’s drama that America stopped producing 30 years ago. Although his film maybe lacks so neat a moral dilemma as that posed by The Son, Spielmann matches the Dardennes at the level of execution. Or, more to the point, I was tense and curious for the entire length of the film, and I was completely satisfied by its resolution. (Also, what the Dardennes did for the lumberyard, Spielmann has done for the wood pile.) Highly recommended.

    And now I’d like to make my annual request of first-time writer-directors: When you find yourself typing the words “And then she’s raped,” please reach for the backspace key and go for a long walk, because you aren’t working hard enough. I’d lost trust in Kornel Mandruczo well before Delta took its predictable dramatic turn. Although the right influences are on display here (Tarr most of all but also a bit of Angelopoulos), although he sustains an admirable formal rigor throughout the film, and although there are individual moments of knockout beauty, Delta is starving for a purpose. I knew as soon as the rape scene began that I was watching the anti-Revanche, a film built upon a single idea, populated with paper-thin characters, headed inevitably toward a careless, banal conclusion. I suspect that, had Mandrukzo appeared for a Q&A, he would have defended the film in symbolic terms (I won’t be giving anything away to say that the final image is of a pet turtle swimming back into nature), but the ideas animating those symbols are too anemic to justify this mess.

  • Anticipating TIFF (2008)

    Anticipating TIFF (2008)

    What a week. Yesterday, around 1 pm, our realtor stopped by the house and plunked down a For Sale sign in our front yard. After a four-and-a-half year search, Joanna has finally found us the perfect farm house with enough acreage for her two horses, and so now the game of falling dominoes begins. (Typical story: We can’t buy that place until we sell this one, and we’ll need the buyer — assuming there is a buyer — to give us at least 30 days to get out.) About 40 minutes after the For Sale sign appeared in our yard I accepted a job offer from the Alumni Affairs office at UT, so as of October 1, I’ll be their new Communications Manager. It’s all exciting and bittersweet, but mostly it’s just totally and completely exhausting.

    The Toronto International Film Festival is always the most highly anticipated week-and-a-half of my year, but this time around my eagerness to go watch movies, hang out with friends, and wander around a great city is being trumped by the more basic and urgent need for a vacation. I’m deep-down-in-the-bones tired and I can’t wait to get away and be a different version of myself for 11 days. When I got home last year, I told Joanna that Toronto has become my mistress. I’ll stand by that metaphor.

    TIFF will be a slightly different experience this year in at least two important ways. First, several friends won’t be making the trip, and their absence, to be perfectly frank, sucks. The boot camp metaphor is old and tired and not perfectly applicable here, but there’s an intensity to the festival experience that fosters friendships of a kind I don’t often experience in my day-to-day life. We’re together all day, every day; we eat together and drink together and spend nearly every minute outside of the theater talking and debating. It’s great fun, and I’m genuinely going to miss the folks who won’t be around.

    TIFF will also be different this year because, for the first time, I’ll have a press pass. I’ll be doing my best to fill Dan Sallitt’s shoes, covering the fest for Senses of Cinema. I’m sticking mostly to public screenings but do hope to pick up an interview or two while I’m there. I’m also just curious to snatch a quick peek at the industry side of the fest.

    As for the lineup, this is the first time in my five years of attending that I’m disappointed — not necessarily because of what’s showing, much of which should be exceptional, but because of what is missing. Lucrecia Martel’s The Headless Woman was the Cannes film I most wanted to see, and, inexplicably, it wasn’t programmed. Same goes for new films by Philippe Garrel, Abbas Kiarostami, Theo Angelopoulos, Hong Sang-soo, and Ross McElwee. This will also be my first TIFF without a film by Tsai Ming-liang and/or Hou Hsiao-hsien

    So, what am I excited about? Claire Denis, first and foremost. I know nothing about 35 Rhums other than that Denis made it with her regular family of collaborators: cinematographer Agnes Godard, writer Jean-Pol Fargeau, and actors Alex Descas and Gregoire Colin. Until proven otherwise, I can only assume it will be the best film I see all year. I’m also incredibly excited to see James Benning’s RR in the Wavelengths program, along with new films by Nathaniel Dorsky, Jim Jennings, Jean-Marie Straub, and Jennifer Reeves. I’m seeing a bunch of the Cannes films and, at the moment at least, am most anticipating Alsonso’s Liverpool and Serra’s Birdsong.

    Here’s my schedule. Capsule reviews will hopefully follow in the coming weeks.

    Thursday, 9/4

    • Acne (Federico Veiroj)

    Friday, 9/5

    Saturday, 9/6

    Sunday, 9/7

    Monday, 9/8

    Tuesday, 9/9

    Wednesday, 9/10

    Thursday, 9/11

    Friday, 9/12

    Saturday, 9/13

  • The Unknown (1927)

    The Unknown (1927)

    Dir. Tod Browning

    The San Francisco Silent Film Festival‘s opening night screening of Harold Lloyd’s The Kid Brother (Wilde, 1927) was preceded by Broncho Billy’s Adventure (Anderson, 1911), a short Western about a gun-toting barkeep, his teenaged daughter, and the man she loves. Midway through the film, we see the young woman weeping over her lover, who is bedridden after being shot outside of the saloon. In the style typical of shorts from the 1910s, the actress’s performance is all wild-eyed, teeth-gnashing, and chest-thumping. It was too much for the San Francisco audience, who hooted and laughed throughout the scene. Behind me, I heard a confused four-year-old ask her mother the same question I was asking myself: “Why is this silly?”

    Twenty-four hours later, Guy Maddin introduced Tod Browning’s The Unknown with a succinct defense of melodrama:

    At night, when we sleep, in our dreams we are liberated. Our selves, our story selves, are liberated. Our ids are loosed upon our little dreamscapes and — if we’re lucky — we get to grab the person we lust after; we get to hit the person we hate; we get to wail and scream and moan all we want without anyone scolding us. And, also, we’re given access: little repressed fears and anxieties grow into monstrous terrors in our dreams and our true selves become so uninhibited. I use the word “uninhibited” pointedly because melodrama is always aligned as something sort of grotesque or a tasteless exaggeration of real life. If that’s all melodrama were, it would deserve that slag; but, I think a melodrama isn’t a true life exaggerated — that would be bogus — it’s true life uninhibited, just like our dreams.

    It was a perfect prologue to The Unknown, a collaboration between Browning and Lon Chaney that exists almost completely in uninhibited, symbolic space. Chaney plays Alonzo, an armless knife-thrower in a traveling carnival show, whose love for Nanon (a very young and incredibly sexy Joan Crawford) threatens to expose his carefully guarded secrets. Alonzo’s deformity is given a funhouse mirror reflection in the person of Malabar the Mighty (Norman Kerry), whose desire to hold Nanon in his arms repulses her. The specter of sexual abuse (at the hands of her father?) seeps into every corner of this film, which is overrun by tragedy, dread, heartache, and transgression.

    Or, at least, that was my experience of The Unknown on a second viewing — this time alone in my home with the soundtrack muted. (The film is available on disc 2 of TCM’s Lon Chaney Collection.) Despite his opening testament to the artistry of melodrama, Guy Maddin turned the San Francisco screening into a bit of a camp fest. The beautiful print we saw was on loan from the Cinematheque Francaise and had French intertitles, which Maddin then “untranslated” by reading aloud from the original American release. If you’re familiar with Maddin’s films or have heard him speak in other contexts, then you can surely imagine the effect of hearing him deliver lines like, “You are a riddle, Nanon. You shrink from me . . . yet you kiss my flowers when I am gone.” The sold out house never stopped laughing, it was so silly.

    Except the film isn’t silly at all. (And I’m sure Maddin would agree). Watching it alone, in silence, I was struck by images like this:

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    Melodrama is a matter of narrative and performance style, of course, but, particularly in silent cinema, the core of melodrama is mise-en-scene. The exaggerated emotion in this shot is not generated by plot intrigues but by the deep focus photography (that open balcony in the background), the clash of patterns in the set decoration and costumes (the checkered tablecloth, striped blouse, and ornate headscarf), and most importantly the staging of the two actors — Chaney’s intimate smile, Crawford’s stiff shoulders and the curve of her neck, and the unnatural light that illuminates Nanon’s body.

    Nanon’s Redemption

    The turning point of The Unknown comes when Alonzo flees the carnival to have a ghastly operation, which, unfortunately for him, allows time for Nanon and Malabar to become better acquainted. After Alonzo decides to leave, Browning cuts to the following shot of Nanon, with Malabar’s flowers in hand, descending a flight of stairs. The strange, textured camera effect Browning uses here heightens the unreality of the scene, as if we’ve entered Alonzo’s subjectivity. Notice, again, the curve of Crawford’s neck. Browning has a bit of a fetish, I think. Notice, also, the empty bed in the foreground.

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    The first three shots are a standard progression: extreme long, long, medium. Then Nanon slowly turns, and on an eyeline match we enter a perspective just outside of her point of view. Malabar the Mighty has returned. (Is it just me or does Norman Kerry look exactly like Kevin Kline here?)

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    And then the close-up, with tears poised to drop. Just a ridiculously beautiful image.

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    Finally, Nanon’s redemption. So much emotion packed into a single, simple movement.

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    Nope. It’s not silly at all.

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

    The Unknown (Browning, 1927)

  • Los Muertos (2004)

    Los Muertos (2004)

    Dir. by Lisandro Alonso

    I’ve been trying to catch up with the work of a few of the highly regarded directors who will have new films at TIFF this year, and this morning I watched Lisandro Alonso’s Los Muertos, which, at least on a first viewing, is one of the most exciting and important films I’ve seen in some time. I just regret that I hadn’t had a chance to see it before watching Alonso’s Fantasma at TIFF ’06. I was put off by what I felt was a misanthropic streak in that film, though after having spent 80 minutes with Vargas now, I wonder how different my experience of it would be.

    I’m tempted to call Los Muertos “important” because it complicates a tendency of contemporary art cinema. So many of the films I like fall into particular formal habits: long takes, static cameras, expressionless faces, an avoidance of close-ups and reaction shots, little non-diegetic sound, and a curious attention to physical space (typically the natural world — trees, leaves, grass, bodies of water, etc.). It’s become a kind of formula, and critics and cinephiles who are drawn to these kinds of films are prone, I think, to be a bit too forgiving of their faults. Like, I remember watching Naomi Kawase’s The Mourning Forest last year and thinking, “Okay, this movie has everything I like in a film, so way does its stab at transcendence seem so totally calculated and false to me?”

    What fascinates me about Los Muertos is that it explores the connection between form and content by taking all of the tropes of “transcendental cinema” and staining them, by narrative means, with dread and violence. It reminds me of Brian Eno’s answer (apocryphal, perhaps) when he was asked if he was the father of New Age music: “No, my music has evil in it.”

  • Four Men and a Prayer (1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (1938)

    Dir. by John Ford

    The following are screen captures from two related sequences in John Ford’s Four Men and a Prayer, a remarkable (and remarkably strange) film about imperialism, globalization, and the military industrial complex that predates America’s involvement in World War II by three years. I could have just as easily ended that sentence with the phrases “that predates Eisenhower’s farewell address by more than two decades” or “that predates the Iran-Contra scandal by nearly fifty years.” The film is about four British sons who in their efforts to redeem the reputation of their murdered father uncover an elaborate plot by otherwise respectable businessmen to sell arms to anyone with the money to pay, even when that means supplying both sides of a revolutionary struggle in South America.

    Sequence 1

    Loretta Young plays Lynn Cherrington, the carefree American lover of one of the sons, who, over the course of the film, discovers that her father is president — in title, at least — of the arms manufacturer that profits from the war in “Marlanda, an island kingdom far off the beaten track, hurled into revolt by the machinations of a munitions sydicate,” or so the fictional country is described in an inter-title. Note the preposition there. War is induced by the profiteers.

    In sequence 1, Ford offers a montage of beautiful portraits of the revolutionaries, who all cling tightly to the weapons that might bring them freedom. The close-up of Young establishes the point of view here: naive, privileged, romantic. She’s a tourist. These are six consecutive shots, accompanied only by the voice of the revolution’s leader, who says of the weapons: “With these I shall liberate my unfortunate people. They shall be happy once more. Liberty!”

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Sequence 2

    Moments later the revolutionaries discover their weapons are faulty, and the entire group is gunned down — again with Loretta Young looking on. I’ve trimmed a few shots from this sequence but what I’ve included is representative of Ford’s montage.

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    Four Men and a Prayer (Ford, 1938)

    One of the few bits of writing about this film I could find online makes the fairly obvious point that Four Men and a Prayer reenacts imperialism both in its representation of other cultures — Ford’s vision of the Other is only slightly more nuanced than Spielberg’s in Temple of Doom — and in its basic plot construction: the story, after all, posits that the real moral issue of the film is whether four incredibly wealthy British men can restore their father’s honor.

    But, good god, these two sequences are like something from Godard’s Week End — a genuinely shocking and disorienting experience that short-circuits every plot contrivance. As the characters saunter their way through the remainder of their adventure over the next 30 minutes, every move is infected with cynicism and bile.

  • Lee Isaac Chung: The Storm of Progress

    Lee Isaac Chung: The Storm of Progress

    This interview was originally published at Sojourners.

    * * *

    In early 1940, just months before he would die while fleeing the Gestapo in Spain, the Jew­ish-German literary critic Walter Benjamin assembled his “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” a brief collection of observations that is equal parts theology and Marxist analysis. In Thesis IX, he studies Paul Klee’s modernist painting “Angelus Novus” and finds in it a usable metaphor for history. Klee’s work depicts a magnificent, expressionist angel whose face is turned toward the past. His mouth is agape and his wings are fully extended as he concentrates his gaze on the ever-growing catastrophe behind him. The angel wishes to pause so that he might revive and redeem human history, but “a storm is blowing from Paradise.” “This storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward.” Benjamin concludes, “This storm is what we call progress.”

    Lee Isaac Chung alludes to “Angelus Novus” when describing his first feature-length film, Munyurangabo, a poetic and beautifully humane snapshot of Rwanda as it exists today, nearly a decade and a half after the genocide. The film, which premiered in May 2007 at the Cannes Film Festival and has since played at fests in Toronto, Los Angeles, London, Rotterdam, Berlin, and elsewhere, adopts a view of “progress” similar to Benjamin’s. “One audience member in Berlin challenged us for ending the movie on a note of hopefulness,” Chung says. “But it’s not a naive or simple hope. Any progress made in Rwanda will come from the hard work of reconciliation combined with a wide-eyed acknowledgment of the past. That’s why we conceived of this simple story of two young boys. Munyurangabo is, in part, about how memory shapes the formation of identity—personal, cultural, and national—and how that identity shapes our behavior.”

    The heroes of Chung’s film are ‘Ngabo (short for Munyur­angabo, played by Jeff Ruta­gengwa) and Sangwa (Eric Ndo­r­un­kundiye), teen­age boys who became friends while working as porters in a market in Kigali. At the start of the film, they set off together on a journey, stopping first at the remote village that Sangwa had fled three years earlier. They intend to stay for only a few hours, but Sangwa’s reunion with his mother and father is promising, and the glimpse of domestic happiness it offers leaves him increasingly unnerved about the real purpose of their trip: to avenge the murder of ‘Ngabo’s father by finding and killing the man responsible. “I heard so many similar stories from children their age,” Chung says. “Eric’s father was killed in the genocide, and Jeff’s went missing as well. Like so many of the orphans who can be found in the ghettoes of Kigali, they’ve both really struggled. The film is a composite of their stories and others like them.”

    CHUNG GAINED access to the orphans of Kigali through his association with Youth With a Mission (YWAM), a relief organization that provides Christian discipleship training and ministers to children, widows, and people suffering the effects of HIV/AIDS. “Soon after we got married, my wife decided that she wanted to spend another summer in Rwanda. She’d volunteered with YWAM several times already and was eager to return. Rather than continue agonizing over the stalled plans for my first big film, I decided, instead, to just drop it completely and go with her.” Taking with him two friends from college and a camera he’d bought on eBay, Chung set out to teach filmmaking. “I’d taught some classes as a graduate assistant in film school and figured this was something unique I could offer.”

    Chung’s goal was to make a film there—in Rwanda, with a small budget and a small crew made up of orphans and others he’d met in Kigali. “After looking at the types of films that were coming out of Rwanda and finding no narrative films that Rwandans could claim as their own, it became clear to us that we should treat this project seriously with the goal that it could be a Rwandan film, primarily for their audience.” He and one of his partners, Samuel Anderson, composed a treatment for the film but never fully scripted it, choosing instead to improvise the dialog during rehearsals with their cast of first-time actors. As the project evolved, Chung, Anderson, and their other partner, Jenny Lund, also decided to shoot the movie on film, a relatively risky and expensive proposition in this age of cheap, high-quality digital video. “It just kept getting bigger,” Chung laughs. “Our ambition for the production, I mean. The more we talked, the more we wanted it to look a certain way. We needed film.”

    Presumably, Munyurangabo’s in­clusion in the lineups of so many prestigious festivals can be attributed in part to Chung’s photography. It is a strikingly beautiful film. And, particularly for a first-time director, Chung demonstrates a genuine talent for an essential aspect of his craft: He knows where to put the camera. When I ask about my favorite shot in the film, a simple image of Sangwa’s and ‘Ngabo’s faces in profile, he thanks me for the compliment but seems reticent to talk at length about the scene. “I knew what shots would come before it and what would come after it, and I knew I needed to break the rhythm with a quieter moment.” Chung’s humility can actually be felt in the image itself. Like the filmmakers to whom he owes the greatest debt—Terrence Malick, Andrei Tarkovsky, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne—Chung has a sensitive curiosity about the human face, and the style of his film invites viewers to reflect upon their shared dignity rather than to simply pass judgment, as films so often do.

    With some embarrassment, Chung admits another reason his film has found an audience at international festivals: “Several programmers have told me the film isn’t what they expected it to be.”

    “Which is what, exactly?” I ask.

    “I guess they expected another film about white guilt.”

    We both laugh.

    CHUNG WAS BORN in rural Arkansas, where his Korean father had moved to raise his children and establish a farm. “I guess it isn’t the typical immigrant story,” he admits. “Most leave the land in order to find economic opportunity in the city, but my father had other ideas.” After getting his first glimpse of New York City as a teenager, Chung followed his older sister to Yale, where he pursued his interests in politics and studied biology. His long-term plans changed, however, after he and a group of friends began watching foreign and classic art films together. Instead of medical school, Chung moved to Salt Lake City to study film at the University of Utah.

    “Munyurangabo is a tricky movie for the festivals to categorize,” he continues. “It’s usually programmed as an African film, and I guess it is in many respects. In fact, it’s the first narrative feature film ever made in the Kinyarwanda language. But I’m an American, obviously, and so that complicates things.” Recently, several Hollywood productions have taken on the subject of African genocide, including the Oscar-nominated films Hotel Rwanda and The Last King of Scotland, the latter of which reimagines the murderous dictatorship of Idi Amin through the eyes of a young white European doctor. The film adopts that perspective to a fault, I think, turning the people of Uganda into incomprehensible and exotic curiosities. As a result, Scotland’s most affecting moments appeal to sentiments like pity and horror—and to our shared guilt—but at the expense of lasting understanding or empathy.

    What distinguishes Munyuran­gabo from the slew of “white guilt” films is best typified by a scene in which Sangwa, hoping to regain his father’s respect, joins his neighbors in the fields. Chung’s camera watches from a distance as they work together to till the hard, packed soil. Sangwa’s movements are labored and unnatural; his father raises and drops his hoe with a practiced grace. (“I joke that what Akira Kurosawa did for rain-soaked samurai battles, I want to do for farming scenes.”) Were it not for Chung’s tasteful use of traditional Rwandan music and several seconds of slow motion, the scene could be mistaken for documentary footage. Jean Marie Nkurikiyinka (the father) really is a farmer, Ndorunkundiye (Sangwa) really has raised himself on the streets of Kigali, and, regardless of the fact that Chung’s story is manufactured, all that real human history and experience is captured there in his images of bodies in motion. “Here,” the father says, “like this,” demonstrating for his son the proper technique. And with that unexpected moment of encouragement, the possibility of hope is suddenly made tangible.

    INSPIRED BY A Christian survivor of the genocide who once quoted the passage to him, Chung uses Isaiah 51:19-20 as an epigraph for the film: “These double calamities have come upon you; Who can comfort you? Ruin and destruction, famine and sword; Who can console you? Your sons have fainted. They lie at the head of every street, like antelope caught in a net. They are filled with the wrath of the Lord and the rebuke of your God.”

    “Is this an Old Testament film or a New Testament film?” I ask.

    After a slight pause, Chung answers: “I have great respect for people who put all of their hope in a future in which the world has been redeemed and made perfect. I have a faith in that future, too. But we’re here now, and the world is far from perfect, and we’re required to work. It’s complicated. It’s like that storm in ‘Angelus Novus.’ Are you familiar with it?”

  • The Iron Horse (1924)

    The Iron Horse (1924)

    Dir. by John Ford

    According to Tag Gallagher’s biography, John Ford: The Man and His Films, only five of the fifty or so films Ford made between 1918 and 1924 have survived; two of them, Just Pals (1920) and The Iron Horse (1924), are included in the Ford at Fox DVD collection. Just Pals is a fun little romp starring Buck Jones as a charming ne’er-do-well who falls in love with the local school teacher, befriends a young runaway, thwarts a crime, and generally makes trouble for himself and for others.

    The Iron Horse is a much more ambitious and fascinating picture. The story revolves around the laying of the first transcontinental railroad, complete with a final-reel reenactment of the driving of the Golden Rail at Promontory Summit, Utah, that features the actual locomotives that first met there in 1869. (We know they’re the actual locomotives thanks to a series of title cards that notify viewers of the filmmakers’ every effort to achieve historical authenticity.) At nearly 150 minutes, The Iron Horse was a massive production, employing thousands of extras, builders, cooks, rail layers, Indians, cavalrymen, cattle, and horses, and spawning countless legends. Gallagher quotes assistant Lefty Hough: “The Ford outfit was the roughest goddamdest outfit you ever saw, from the director on downward. Ford and his brother, Eddie O’Fearna, were fighting all the time.” Ford remembered the production as “births, deaths, marriages, and all in the icy cold.” The Iron Horse went on to gross more than $2 million and became the first Fox film to play on Broadway.

    Along with simply being a tremendous pleasure to watch, The Iron Horse offers a fascinating peek into the evolution of the Hollywood film style. By 1924 — and with four dozen films under his belt — Ford already understood the mechanics of what would eventually be called standard continuity editing, and so, for me, the most interesting moments in the early films are when something breaks, as in the following sequence.

    The Establishing Shots

    Shot 1 lasts for only a few seconds, giving us too little time to get our bearings or to pick out any recognizable faces (there aren’t any, actually). What are we looking at, exactly? And from where are we looking?

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    In the next four shots, none of the eyelines match. The two men in the first two shots are seated together, though you’d never know it from Ford’s montage, and he’s also made it impossible for us to situate them at any particular spot in the saloon.

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    The bad guy enters, and a group of men turn to look at him. But where are they in the room? (Go back to shot 1 to find them.) And who are these guys? So far, the two men seated together are the only people in the room who appear elsewhere in the film.

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    The Reestablishing Shots

    Now that most of the characters have made their appearance, Ford begins to map out the room. Bad guy mosies toward the bar . . .

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    Bartenders remove the mirror . . .

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    And now we’re back to that odd position from shot 1. It turns out that we’re standing behind the bar. In this cut, Ford essentially gives us an eyeline match from the p.o.v. of the mirrorless wall! This time, however, we’re also allowed to figure out where everyone is standing.

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    And in case we’ve lost our bearings, Ford jumps 180 degress to the other side of the room and cuts together three medium shots from one end of the bar:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    . . . and then from the other end of the bar:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    . . . and then, finally, from the middle of the bar:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    The Crosscut

    Ah, our beautiful young lovers, George O’Brien and Madge Bellamy. In most respects this is standard, silent-era, melodramatic cross-cutting. After introducing a mysterious batch of villains, Ford cuts to our hero, who relents to his love’s request that he lay down his guns. O’Brien even strikes his best Valentino pose, staring off meaningfully into the distance. (Between this film and Ford’s Three Bad Men (1926), George O’Brien is fast becoming one of my favorite leading men of the silent era.)

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    But what I love are the moments when life interrupts the theatrical staging, as when Bellamy bites her lower lip, an incredibly sexy and unexpected rupture of silent film convention:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    Or the way she takes his hand in hers and brings it to rest, very slowly, on her . . . dress. Beautiful!

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    The Showdown

    And finally our hero arrives at the saloon, walking straight into the trap:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    Which springs all of the mysterious men into action:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    Leaving only our hero, who is defenseless, and our central villains, the fop and the sadistic mastermind:

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    John Ford's The Iron Horse

    All of the strange editing has served to focus the emotional energy of the sequence onto this one point: the showdown between the chaste Fordian hero, who is protected on all sides by an amorphous social structure, and the foppish villain. That the ensuing fist fight turns out as something of a draw is irrelevant. The hero wins the battle before the first fist is thrown.

  • Magic and Loss

    Magic and Loss

    How’s this for a strange association? While marveling at Lou Reed’s performance Wednesday night, I kept thinking of Michel Subor. In Claire Denis’s L’Intrus, Subor plays Louis Trebor, a mysterious man nearing 70 whose carefully managed life is undone by a heart attack. Denis often films Subor and the other actors in close-up, emphasizing the peculiar character of their faces — the deep lines and moles and varieties of complexion. When Trebor visits a masseuse soon after his heart transplant, Denis lingers on the deep scar running down the middle of his chest. His face winces as the small woman’s fingers kneed on his scarred skin.

    I went to the Lou Reed concert mostly out of curiosity and with no particular expectations. I certainly wasn’t expecting such a stellar band — featuring Rob Wasserman, Kevin Hearn, Tony Smith, and Steve Hunter — or such an affecting experience. Lou and the band ticked through the same twelve songs they’ve played every night on this tour, which meant there was little chance of spontaneity or surprise, but the setlist was tight and had a slow-burning power. (“Slow-burning power”? Really? This is why I don’t write about music.)

    Back to the strange association . . .

    The fourth song of the set was a 14-minute version of “Ecstasy” that completely transformed the atmosphere in the room. It begins with a drone-like prelude before settling comfortably into a shuffling verse. Lou’s minimalist guitar solo opens things up a bit — God, I love his guitar tone — and then things temporarily explode into a fit of percussion. The part that really got to me, though, was the final verse:

    I feel like that car that I saw today, no radio, no engine, no hood
    You know, I’m going to that cafe
    I hope they got music, I hope those guys can play
    But if we have to part, I’ll have a new scar right here, right over my heart
    Any you know what I’ll call it? I’ll call it ecstasy.

    As he sang, he dragged a line with one finger over his chest and introduced a new idea — or a new sense — to the show. The deep lines in Lou’s face suddenly became more fascinating and hard-earned. There was a new melancholy in the room — a kind of painful pleasure. It’s hard to explain, and perhaps I’m the only one who felt it. A few minutes later, he sang a new song, “The Power of the Heart,” which is sentimental and sweet, even — presumably it’s a gift of sorts for his recent bride, Laurie Anderson — but, somehow, passing through Lou’s body makes the song something else. It’s that same melancholy, the sense that life is long and hard and occasionally beautiful. It’s “magic and loss,” as he sang later in the show. It’s a “halloween parade” — a roaring carnival of lost friends and lost loves.

  • 40 Hours in 18 Images and 3 Songs

    The Duke Spirit

    Thursday Night, The Bijou Theatre, Knoxville, 9:40 – 10: 30 p.m.

    If I die having never seen PJ Harvey live, I will at least be able to tell my grandchildren that I saw Liela Moss and The Duke Spirit play their first ever show in Knoxville. Michael Smith has been keeping me up-to-date on all things Spirit-related for the last two years, and after experiencing Liela first-hand, up close and personal, I owe him one. She is such a rock star. In a town like Knoxville, where crowds for this kind of show typically number in the low hundreds, her energy and joy were a real treat. She never stopped playing to the last row of the balcony, even though when the spotlights dimmed, I’m sure she could see that the balcony was empty. From what I could tell, there were maybe only four or five other people there on Thursday night who had heard of The Duke Spirit, but by intermission there was a long line at their merch table and every conversation around me was about the band.

    The Duke Spirit at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    The Duke Spirit at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    The Duke Spirit at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    The Duke Spirit at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    Black Rebel Motorcycle Club

    Thursday Night, The Bijou Theatre, Knoxville, 10:50 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.

    The most pleasant surprise of my concert-going year in 2007 was seeing Morrissey. It had been a while since I’d last experienced a rock star extravaganza, complete with wardrobe changes and a light show. (I’m now convinced he’s the Tom Jones of Generation X.) But even Morrissey, at his posing, most calculated best, isn’t as committed to an aesthetic as are the guys in BRMC. Dressed in black and silhouetted by uplighting and a barrage of strobes, they pounded their way through about 70 minutes of music before I left. It was great fun to see a hard working power trio again — bassist Robert Levon Been and guitarist Peter Hayes are both impressive — but especially after The Duke Spirit, BRMC’s act felt too much like a pose. Live music should be fun, right?

    Black Rebel Motor Cycle Club at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    Black Rebel Motor Cycle Club at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    Black Rebel Motor Cycle Club at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    Black Rebel Motor Cycle Club at The Bijou Theatre in Knoxville

    Sonic Youth

    Friday Night, City Hall, Nashville, 10:20 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.

    In a week or two I’m going to turn 36, and I felt it on Thursday night. The BRMC demographic, apparently, skews a bit younger. Which is one of the many reasons it was so much fun to see Sonic Youth just 24 hours later. Among the thousand or so people who packed the room at City Hall in Nashville was a healthy assortment of folks like me who bought Daydream Nation back when it was released, twenty years ago. I’d hoped we might get a surprise encore of their 2007 tour, when they played Daydream front-to-back, but, instead, we got three songs from it — “Hey Joni,” “Candle,” and “‘Cross the Breeze” — several from Rather Ripped (I still really love “Reena”), and an assortment of older material. I’m not complaining. I’m sure that if I had the opportunity to see Sonic Youth live every night for the rest of my life, I’d eventually skip a show or two, but not for some time. Being packed into a sweaty crowd, bouncing to that Sonic Youth noise, is a special kind of euphoria. Kim, Lee, and Thurston are all in their 50s now, so I figure I’ve got another decade or two in me.

    Sonic Youth at City Hall in Nashville

    Sonic Youth at City Hall in Nashville

    Sonic Youth at City Hall in Nashville

    Sonic Youth at City Hall in Nashville

    Sonic Youth at City Hall in Nashville

    Sonic Youth at City Hall in Nashville

    Last Year at Marienbad

    Saturday Afternoon, The Belcourt Theatre, Nashville, 12:00 p.m. – 1:40 p.m.

    One of my secret ambitions is to establish in Knoxville a theater like Nashville’s Belcourt. The last remaining independent theater in the city, The Belcourt is now run as a non-profit and offers a variety of film programming, live music, and drama. Notably, it is often the only theater in the southeast where audiences can see the newly-struck prints that play NYC, Toronto, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco. It’s where I saw Satantango a year-and-a-half ago and where, yesterday, I saw the same 35mm print of Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad that played at the Castro in March. I’d seen Marienbad only one other time — seven or eight years ago when I was just beginning to discover European cinema. I remember thinking at the time, “Hmmmm, I wonder if it’s possible for a film’s drama to be located in the camera rather than in the performances?” It was that kind of breakthrough film for me. And I’m happy to say I’m no nearer to understanding it today.

    Last Year in Marienbad in 35mm

    Last Year in Marienbad in 35mm

    Last Year in Marienbad in 35mm

    Last Year in Marienbad in 35mm

  • Platform (2000)

    Platform (2000)

    Dir. by Jia Zhang-ke

    With so many directors now throwing in their cameras with the “single-shot scenes from a fixed position” school of filmmaking, there’s a growing problem for those of us who believe that a fundamental job of critics is to accurately describe what we see. Films built almost entirely from images that would have been described traditionally as “establishing shots” beg the question: How does one describe and evaluate this kind of montage (if that’s even the right word)?

    I find it frustrating that, even after years of seeking out and championing directors who I casually label “meditative” or “contemplative,” I’m no closer to understanding how their films work, exactly, and I’m certainly no better at arguing the merits of a particularly “great” director as opposed to just a “good” one. Likewise, I’m often at an embarrassing loss when asked to evaluate a particular film by a favorite filmmaker who works in this style. (Oddly, I would love someday to be disappointed by a Hou Hsiao-hsien film if only because it would offer some tangible proof that I’m capable of being a . . . what’s the word? . . . critic of his work.) I skate by with a bit of critical sleight of hand: I allude to an aesthetic by uttering a few incantations — “static,” “elliptical,” “unhurried,” “natural” — and then, poof, the real form of the film disappears. Magic.

    Case in point: Jia Zhang-ke’s Platform. Narratively and thematically, it’s a fun film to discuss. Like all of Jia’s work, it’s about the social, economic, and political forces that have radically altered China over the past three decades. Platform begins in 1979, when a group of teenaged musicians and dancers from the small town of Fenyang go to work with a Peasant Culture Group, traveling by bus from town to town and performing songs in celebration of Chairman Mao. By the time the film ends, two-and-a-half hours later, it’s 1989 and the Group has been transformed by privatization into a pop music and breakdance revue, playing to small and mostly uninterested crowds. Platform is one of those great small epics. It’s ambitious and wildly catholic in its range of socio-political concerns, but it’s also a very human and personal film. Jia has the sensibilities of a novelist, I think.

    That’s the easy part, though. What about the form of the film? Jia’s camera is often “static,” with only occasional pans and tilts. His editing is “elliptical,” and the performances of his actors are “natural” and “unhurried.” (Abracadabra!) I also noticed that nearly all interiors, at least in small rooms, are shot on a diagonal from corner to corner, unless there’s a window, in which case he likes to shoot directly into the natural light, hiding his actors’ faces in the shadows cast by strong backlighting.

    I want this post to do something more specific, though. The following nine images represent eight shots (with seven cuts and one pan) that account for approximately five minutes of the film’s running time. This section comes near the midpoint of the film, when the troupe hits the road for a brief tour.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 1: Near-complete silence, with only the sound of wind and a brief exchange of dialog between Ming-liang (on right) and his cousin, who has taken a job at a mine. Notice how they crouch below the horizon. It’s a recurring motiff — people being overshadowed by the landscape, I mean.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 2: Cut to a performance of traditional music by the troupe. Jia’s cuts are often more jarring on the soundtrack than in the frame, and in Platform he’s especially fond of cutting from silence or natural sounds to the rattling of a diesel engine (see shot 3). The ellision seems to completely displace this moment from the preceding shot, but notice the flag atop the tower. (Remind anyone else of this album cover?) I didn’t actually notice this graphic match until after grabbing the screen captures. The flag confirms that our p.o.v. has shifted almost exactly 180 degrees — from atop the hill looking down to below the hill looking up.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 3: Cut to a road beside the mine, as the troupe rides away in the bed of a noisy tractor. (This shot is a mirror image of one that came three minutes earlier.)

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 4: A new sequence, a new truck, and no clues as to how much time or distance have been ellided by the cut.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 5: Am I mistaken, or is this a cut from an establishing shot to a medium shot? Finally! Jia is doing some standard blocking. Ming-liang puts in a tape and listens to a pop song, which creates a kind of cultural or thematic ellision, too — from tradition and timelessness to of-the-moment fashion and coming-of-age angst.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 6: So much for a standard shot breakdown. Instead of cutting to Ming-liang in close-up, as Hollywood continuity editing would lead us to expect, Jia shifts our p.o.v. by 180 degrees again. The other kids eventually gather around his door to listen to the music . . .

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    . . . but then become distracted by the sound of a passing train behind them. They run off toward the sound, and Jia’s camera pans 180 degrees to follow them. Our p.o.v. is now essentially the same as it was in shot 5, except we’re now on the far side of the truck.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 7: Can you spot our pack of running teenagers? Like the pink flag in shot 1, they’ve been made tiny by distance and consigned to the bottom-right corner of the frame. It’s impossible to tell from this still image, but they’re actually running toward us, which means, of course, that our p.o.v. has shifted 180 degrees one more time.

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    Shot 8: After the train passes, the troupe races to the track to watch it race off. (The scene is a nice answer to the opening moments of the film, when Ming-liang is chastised for incorrectly mimicking the sounds of a train during a performance — which is forgivable, I would think, since he had never seen or heard one before.) Here we have another graphic match in the cut. Notice how the bridge in shot 7 and the guardrail and horizon line in shot 8 divide the frames at almost the exact same point. Note also the slivers of blue sky peeking over the rounded mountains in both images.

    Edit: Out of curiosity, I did a quick superimposition of shots 7 and 8 and, sure enough, the horizontal line created by the guardrail in both images is an exact match:

    Platform (Jia, 2000)

    I suspect that I could grab any other five-minute section from the film and find a similar precision in the cuts. Jia repeatedly breaks the cardinal rule of continuity editing, but the jarring ruptures of our perspective are modulated precisely by his rhythm (time is something I can’t really discuss with still images, unfortunately) and by graphic matches.

  • Nora Alter on Sans Soleil

    Nora Alter on Sans Soleil

    After a second viewing, I still needed some help wrapping my brain around the structure of Marker’s Sans Soleil. The following is a summary of useful ideas from Nora Alter’s book, Chris Marker (from Illinois UP’s Contemporary Film Directors series, 2006):

    Nearly all of the locations in the film are islands: Japan, Cape Verde, the Isle of Sal, Iceland. Alter sees this as part of Marker’s larger interest in the relationship between space and time, which Krasna, the film’s “author,” identifies as the major preoccupations of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. An island is “separated from the mainland and operat[es] according to its own, relatively autonomous flow of time,” Alter writes. (Note: Twenty-five years later, this idea seems almost quaint in our globalized world.)

    Like the small Icelandic village where it was shot, the image of happiness that opens the film (the three children) is obliterated by darkness: volcanic ash buries the town, blank leader buries the image. Sans Soleil presumes that manufactured images are likewise burying memory, killing off ritual and history in the process. Krasna asks, “I wonder how people remember things, [people] who don’t film, don’t photograph, don’t tape?”

    Krasna’s first instinct upon returning to Tokyo after a twenty-year absence is to “see if everything was where it should be: the Ginza owl, the Shimbashi locomotive.” These landmarks remain, but Japan is a radically different place. Modernization is complete, and society has become totally mediated by technology. Alter points out that both the sights and sounds of the city are seductively micro-managed and offers as an example the strange sequence in which people mourn the death of a panda with curiosity rather than sorrow. “Death has become abstract,” she writes. “By way of contrast, Marker then inserts, without commentary, a graphic and drawn-out film clip depicting the shooting of a giraffe.”

    For Alter, the giraffe scene also serves as a transition to the portion of the film that deals with successful revolutions against the Portuguese in the 1970s. Contrary to Krasna’s earlier claim that only “banality still interests him,” Sans Soleil contrasts its images of mediated Japan with a “story about the promise of liberation and its subsequent disappointments.” Which isn’t to say that the revolutions — and our understanding of them — aren’t also mediated. Alter examines Krasna’s fascinating reading of the photo of Luiz Cabral decorating Major Nino, then concludes: “The impermanence of images merely mirrors the impermanence of history. They are constantly shifting, fleeting, being rewritten and re-remembered.”

    The most obvious form of technological mediation that we experience in Sans Soleil is “The Zone,” the digitally synthesized images that, in Krasna’s view, are “less deceptive than those you see on television. At least they proclaim themselves to be what they are: images, not the portable and compact form of an already inaccessible reality.” The following shots are among the most memorable:

    Sans Soleil (Marker)

    Sans Soleil (Marker)

    Alter identifies five distinct uses of The Zone: first is a rethinking of a documented past (protests of the 1960s); second is the development of video games and representation of the burakumin (“They are non-persons. How can they be shown, except as non-images?”); third is the function of memory; fourth is Japan’s recent history (kamikazes); and fifth is a return to and re-remembering of Marker’s own images (like the screen captures above, which are separated by nearly an hour in the film).

  • Life on Earth (1999)

    Life on Earth (1999)

    Dir. by Abderrahmane Sissako

    “There is an organic unity to village life, but it is both fragile and alienating. In this regard Sissako refuses to either promote some pure, untouched pre-modernity or to mourn for some lost social integration. Sissako’s encompasser always has to make room for those transnational nomads who can’t quite pass muster with traditionalism, and whose presence causes the seemingly organic community to slowly reveal its fissures.”

    Michael Sicinski

    Here, Michael’s actually discussing Waiting for Happiness, Abderrahmane Sissako’s second feature film, but the tenuous unity of village life that he notices there is represented even more clearly, I think, in the earlier film, Life on Earth. As Michael points out, the film opens with a self-consious allusion to Godard — a long tracking shot along shelves and shelves of food in a French supermarket. It’s in the next shot, though, that Sissako establishes the visual template for his film. We first see racks of shoes in the foreground and shelves of toys behind them. Then Sissako himself appears. We eventually learn that he is a student abroad; his trip back home motivates the film’s plot, and his letter to his father provides the voice-over narration. When Sissako enters the frame, he moves from left to right, splitting the two depths of field that were established initially.

    Life on Earth (Cissako, 1999)

    The same visual motif continues after Sissako has left the consumer wonderland of Paris and has returned to his Mali village. In the shot below, Sissako again establishes two depths of field (the group of men sitting below the shade tree and the photographer in the distance) before introducing horizontal movement (first the goats moving left to right, then the man on donkey moving right to left).

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    Then a new variation: Again the donkeys establish horizontal movement and depths of field, but now a figure moves on the perpindicular line, walking toward the camera.

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    Frequently, characters are also staged on various planes of action. In the example below, the man in the foreground and his bicycle wheel are on the horizontal, the man in the back is on the perpendicular, and Sissako, the outsider in the middle ground, breaks the grid at a 45-degree angle.

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    Finally, near the end of Life on Earth, Sissako includes two back-to-back, single-shot sequences that are the culmination of his visual strategy. In the first, we see two merchants at two depths of field. Sissako slowly pulls focus to create a relationship between the men.

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    In the second, he again creates two depths of field, along with the expectation that he will again pull focus. Instead, a third character bisects the planes, and we watch him walk off into the fuzzy distance until Nana stands up and exits on the horizontal.

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    Life on Earth (Sissako, 1999)

    I don’t recall there being any dialogue in any of the shots I’ve captured here. (Nearly all of the film’s few conversations take place in the small post office, where villagers try in vain to communicate with the outside world via a single telephone.) Sissako’s camera, however, is obsessed with relationships and with the geography (geometry?) of social interaction.

  • There Will Be Blood (2007)

    There Will Be Blood (2007)

    Dir. by Paul Thomas Anderson

    Dan Sallitt and Zach Campbell have already done the lion’s share of the work on There Will Be Blood, so go read them first. I want to add a few rambling thoughts while they’re still fresh, though. Like nearly everyone else, apparently, I was overwhelmed by the sheer force of will in Anderson’s filmmaking but am still unsure of what to make of it, exactly.

    Dan’s most helpful insight is: “every time Anderson has a chance to situate Plainview in a social context, he seems not even to notice the opportunity.” I was reminded of that observation when a friend asked what the church congregation represents in the film. I’m tempted to say it doesn’t represent anything at all. And neither does the oil industry, really. Zach, you are being just Lukacsian enough, I think. History, for Anderson, is nothing more than Lukacs’s “collection of curiosities and oddities.” What does Jameson call it? “Pastiche”? “Blank parody, a statue with blind eyeballs”? By deliberately erasing all social context from the film — where are the reaction shots? where are the transactions, organizations, and relationships? — Anderson has turned history into a fairy tale and has undermined every potential opportunity to investigate social institutions like capitalism and religion. As a result, most of the questions begged by the film are made irrelevant. Is Plainview’s acquisition of wealth amoral? Is Sunday a charlatan? Are preachers and tycoons the scourge of America or a mixed blessing? Anderson’s understanding of capital and faith are so anemic as to make words like “morality,” “greed,” and “belief” totally useless as a point of inquiry here.

    So what is Anderson interested in? I’m not sure if he knows, but near as I can tell he’s interested in Daniel Plainview. Dan seems to accept at face value Plainview’s confession at the end of the film that he never cared for his son, H.W., but I’m not so sure. Anderson intercuts a really strange flashback after their final argument in which Plainview remembers — fondly, by all appearances — a day when he happily (if awkwardly) played with H.W. and the young Mary. It’s the only time, as I recall, that we fully enter his subjectivity. I don’t doubt that Plainview recognized and exploited the advantage of having a child along with him when he met with landowners (maybe it occurred to him only after his competitor mentioned it in passing), but I actually think he cared for the boy, just as he genuinely cared for Henry before discovering him to be an imposter. (Why else to include the Henry subplot at all, other than to create a parallelism of sorts?) Plainview is the main focus of the film, and he’s what? A misanthrope who takes rejection particularly bad? A boogey man? A guy who didn’t get enough hugs as a child?

    If this film is a character piece — and I think it’s more that than anything else — then Anderson needs to give us a person to work with. I’m from the “contemplative” school of film criticism. I tend to think that any camera fixated wisely enough and patiently enough on any human face will eventually reveal, with a kind of Bazinian realism, a depth of character that’s impossible to achieve with even the best dramaturgy. (In Devotional Cinema, Nathaniel Dorsky writes: “The total genius of your hand is more profound than anything you could have calculated with your intellect. One’s hand is a devotional object.”) And, strangely enough, that’s where the greatest strengths of There Will Be Blood lie — the two hours of screen time enjoyed by Daniel Day-Lewis, whose acting is stagey and theatrical in an Elia Kazan-ish way but whose sunburned face, stooped shoulders, and bum knee give Plainview more life than he maybe deserves.

    But Anderson isn’t a contemplative filmmaker. He’s downright bombastic — never happier than when emotions are red-lined, music a-blaring, camera swinging at a frenzy. (He’s well on his way to becoming the Michael Bay of the art house, in fact. P.T.A.: “Okay, guys, we’re gonna dolly forward nice and steady on this one.” Grips: “No shit. Really? [sigh]”) Anderson is always anticipating the next big show — Sunday’s wondrous healing, Plainview’s slapfight, the great and cynical baptism scene, Sunday’s leap across the dining room table, and, of course, the murders. To keep us primed, the soundtrack feeds us a steady stream of dissonance, fear, and loathing. Anderson is so good at those scenes, so gifted as a manipulator of our emotions and allegiances, that we overlook the banality and senselessness of the drama. What a fascinating mess of a movie.

  • The Wire, “Moral Midgetry”

    “But to tell the truth, I no longer watch many films, only those by friends or curiosities that an American acquaintance tapes for me on TCM. . . . I feed my hunger for fiction with what is by far the most accomplished source: those terrific American TV series like Deadwood, Firefly, or The Wire . . . There is a knowledge in them, a sense of story and economy, of ellipses, a science of framing and of cutting, a dramaturgy, and an acting style that has no equal anywhere, and certainly not in Hollywood.”

    — Chris Marker

    Written by Richard Price (Clockers, Freedomland) and directed by Agnieszka Holland (Angry Harvest, Europa Europa), episode 33 of The Wire, “Moral Midgetry,” features two single-take shots that epitomize the radically economical storytelling that characterizes the series. In the first, a new player in the drug wars, Marlo, is held in a medium shot for a few seconds before one of his musclemen, Chris, appears in the extreme foreground. The camera dollies slowly to the right as Chris paces through the frame and turns, pausing silently while Marlo finishes a phone call and issues orders. At this point in the series, Chris doesn’t even have a name, but we now know he’s Marlo’s shadow. The shot is as formally rigorous and affecting as anything in Pedro Costa’s films.

    The second example is impressive for entirely different reasons. Here, we’re watching two central characters — men whose history and personalities were established in the opening episodes of the series. An inevitable showdown has finally come, but rather than allow the scene to explode in a fit of exposition, Holland and Director of Photography Eagle Egilsson catch the aftermath in a long, silent take. The camera only catches Stringer Bell and Avon Barksdale together in the frame for a second, as if by accident. Instead, it follows Avon around the room, his body tense and tired. Then, without cutting, the camera pans up on an eyeline match to Stringer. To fully explain the complexity of this moment would require pages and pages of plot synapsis, but I would honestly call it epic — on the scale of a great novel, and flush with ambiguity, tragedy, and hard-earned drama.

  • 2008 Film Diary

    2008 Film Diary

    January
    4 Mysterious Object at Noon [Weerasethakul]
    5 Blissfully Yours [Weerasethakul]
    6 Killer of Sheep [Burnett]
    6 Several Friends [Burnett]
    6 The Horse [Burnett]
    7 When It Rains [Burnett]
    13 Sans Soleil [Marker]
    19 Life on Earth [Sissako]
    20 Waiting for Happiness [Sissako]
    20 There Will Be Blood [Anderson]
    27 The Stranger [Welles]
    29 Citizen Kane [Welles]
    February
    1 Syndromes and a Century [Weerasethakul]
    3 Othello [Welles]
    3 Sans Soleil [Marker]
    9 The Lady from Shanghai [Welles]
    10 Mr. Arkadin [Welles]
    10 La Lutte [Brault, Carriere, Fournier, Jutra]
    10 Les Raquatteurs [Brault, Groulx]
    11 Munyurangabo [Chung]
    16 No End in Sight [Ferguson]
    17 The Trial [Welles]
    23 F for Fake [Welles]
    24 Munyurangabo [Chung]
    24 Fata Morgana [Herzog]
    25 Lessons of Darkness [Herzog]
    26 The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford [Dominik]
    29 Orson Welles: The One-Man Band [Kodar and Silovic]
    March
    1 Gone Baby Gone [Affleck]
    8 The Yards [Gray]
    10 We Own the Night [Gray]
    15 Into the Wild [Penn]
    16 Black Book [Verhoeven]
    21 Platform [Jia]
    30 Just Pals [Ford]
    April
    6 Let Joy Reign Supreme [Tavernier]
    9 The Fog of War [Morris]
    12 The Clockmaker [Tavernier]
    14 The Iron Horse [Ford]
    19 Clean Slate [Tavernier]
    20 Voda [Ilijeska]
    20 Alexandra [Sokurov]
    20 City of Cranes [Weber]
    20 In the City of Sylvia [Guerin]
    20 Quick Feet, Soft Hands [Harrill]
    23 From the Journals of Jean Seberg [Rappaport]
    23 Letter to Jane [Godard and Gorin]
    26 Last Year at Marienbad [Resnais]
    27 Hangman’s House [Ford]
    28 Jean Seberg [Rappaport]
    May
    1 Three Bad Men [Ford]
    3 Four Sons [Ford]
    4 Phantom Love [Menkes]
    5 Calendar [Egoyan]
    7 Cleo from 5 to 7 [Varda]
    10 The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On [Hara]
    11 A Sunday in the Country [Tavernier]
    11 I’m Not There [Haynes]
    17 Born Reckless [Ford]
    18 Pilgrimage [Ford]
    18 ‘Round Midnight [Tavernier]
    21 Pickpocket [Bresson]
    25 Potemkin [Eisenstein]
    27 Iron Man [Favreau]
    31 La Sentinelle [Desplechin]
    June
    1 When Willie Comes Marching Home [Ford]
    2 Up the River [Ford]
    2 Le Gai Savoir [Godard]
    6 No Direction Home: Bob Dylan [Scorsese]
    7 Life and Nothing But [Tavernier]
    8 Esther Kahn [Desplechin]
    8 Four Men and a Prayer [Ford]
    15 Arrowsmith [Ford]
    16 Seas Beneath [Ford]
    18 Masculin Feminin [Godard]
    19 The Embalmer [Garrone]
    21 Who Killed the Electric Car? [Paine]
    21 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days [Mungiu]
    22 The World Moves On [Ford]
    22 The Hurricane [Ford]
    28 The Pornographer [Bonello]
    28 The Lost Patrol [Ford]
    29 Los Muertos [Alonso]
    July
    1 Boy Meets Girl [Carax]
    2 Crane World [Trapero]
    7 Boarding Gate [Assays]
    8 Be With Me [Khoo]
    11 The Kid Brother [Wilde and Lloyd]
    12 The Soul of Youth [Taylor]
    12 Les Deux Timides [Clair]
    12 Michael [Dreyer]
    12 The Unknown [Browning]
    13 The Silent Enemy [Carver]
    13 Her Wild Oat [Neilan]
    13 Jujiro [Kinugasa]
    21 The Unknown [Browning]
    27 Private Property [Lafosse]
    27 The X-Files: I Want to Believe [Carter]
    27 Summercamp! [Price]
    28 La Promesse [Dardenne]
    29 Grand Hotel [Goulding]
    30 Dazed and Confused [Linklater]
    31 The Lovers on the Bridge [Carax]
    August
    1 Friday Night [Denis]
    2 25 Watts [Rebella]
    3 Antares [Spielmann]
    4 Steamboat Round the Bend [Ford]
    8 Serenity [Whedon]
    9 Imitation of Life [Sirk]
    9 Cure [Kurosawa]
    10 Pola X [Carax]
    17 Woman is the Future of Man [Hong]
    30 The Power of Kangwon Province [Hong]
    September
    1 Rodakis [Nicolai]
    1 Block B [Fui]
    1 Black and White Trypps Number 3 [Russell]
    1 Flash in the Metropolitan [Nashashibi and Skaer]
    1 Trypps #5 (Dubai) [Russell]
    4 35 Shots of Rum [Denis]
    5 Revanche [Spielmann]
    5 Delta [Spielmann]
    5 Winter [Dorsky]
    5 Sarabande [Dorsky]
    5 Le Genou d’Artemide [Straub]
    5 Unspoken [Troch]
    6 Three Monkeys [Ceylan]
    6 Me and Orson Welles [Linklater]
    6 L’Atelier [Schupbach]
    6 The Parable of the Tulip Painter and the Fly [Pryce]
    6 How to Conduct a Love Affair [Gatten]
    6 Tell Me on Tuesday [Ofner]
    6 Tziporah [Ravett]
    6 Encyclodaedia Britannica [Latham]
    6 Horizontal Boundaries [O’Neill]
    6 Lossless #2 [Baron and Goodwin]
    6 Refraction Series [Gehman]
    6 Public Domain [Jennings]
    6 Dig [Todd]
    6 Optra Field III-VI [Marie]
    6 Garden/ing [Sonoda]
    7 35 Shots of Rum [Denis]
    7 Wendy and Lucy [Reichardt]
    7 Waltz with Bashir [Folman]
    7 RR [Benning]
    7 Of Time and the City [Davies]
    8 Hunger [McQueen]
    8 Birdsong [Serra]
    8 The Country Teacher [Slama]
    8 Tulpan [Dvortsevoy]
    8 Suspension [O’Neill]
    8 When It was Blue [Reeves]
    9 Liverpool [Alonso]
    9 24 City [Jia]
    9 La Pointe courte [Varda]
    10 The Silence of Lorna [Dardennes]
    10 A Christmas Tale [Desplechin]
    10 Four Nights with Anna [Skolimowski]
    10 Gomorrah [Garrone]
    10 Liverpool [Alonso]
    11 Genova [Winterbottom]
    11 PA-RA-DA [Pontecorvo]
    11 The Beaches of Agnes [Varda]
    11 Still Walking [Kore-eda]
    12 Katia’s Sister [de Jong]
    12 Jerichow [Petzold]
    12 Blind Loves [Lehotsky]
    13 Treeless Mountain [Kim]
    13 Salamandra [Aguero]
    13 Tonight [Schroeter]
    17 Late Spring [Ozu]
    19 Desistfilm [Brakhage]
    20 The Informer [Ford]
    24 Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day [Nalluri]
    27 The Double Life of Veronique [Kieslowski]
    October
    4 Love Songs [Honore]
    5 The Phantom [Murnau]
    17 When It Was Blue [Reeves]
    18 Lola [Demy]
    25 Bay of Angels [Demy]
    26 The Last Laugh [Murnau]
    November
    1 Faust [Murnau]
    2 Tartuffe [Murnau]
    9 The Umbrellas of Cherbourg [Demy]
    12 Nosferatu [Murnau]
    14 Young Girls of Rochefort [Demy]
    15 Rachel Getting Married [Demme]
    16 Donkey Skin [Demy]
    20 For Me and My Gal [Berkeley]
    23 The Power of Nightmares pt. 1 [Curtis]
    29 Ziegfeld Follies [Various]
    30 Anchors Aweigh [Sidney]
    December
    6 The Pirate [Minnelli]
    7 Meet Me in St. Louis [Minnelli]
    12 On the Town [Donen]
    14 Singin’ in the Rain [Donen]
    16 Dong [Jia]
    17 Still Life [Jia]
    20 An American in Paris [Minnelli]
    28 The Bad and the Beautiful [Minnelli]
    29 The Case of the Grinning Car [Marker]
    30 Heartbeat Detector [Klotz]
    31 Shotgun Stories [Nichols]
  • Best Films of 2007

    Best Films of 2007

    I saw more than thirty films that I would call very-good-to-great in 2007 but none that impressed me as much as my favorites from last year, Syndromes and a Century, Still Life / Dong, and Colossal Youth. On average, though, the quality was excellent, and there were several really pleasant surprises. So here are ten favorites, in alphabetical order, with some honorable mentions thrown in, followed by my favorite discoveries of 2007.

    Favorite New Films of 2007

    • At Sea (Peter Hutton) — The highlight for me of TIFF’s Wavelengths program, followed closely by Heinz Emigholz’s Schindler’s Houses. Both are rigorous essay films told in silence (or near-silence) and shockingly beautiful images.
    • En la ciudad de Sylvia (Jose Juis Guerin) — My most pleaurable film-watching experience of the year. My ambivalence about that pleasure is what makes the film more than just an exercise in spectatorship.
    • Fengming, A Chinese Memoir (Wang Bing) — I’ve forgotten many of the details of Fengming’s story, but I can clearly recall her gestures and expressions. As a work of documentary, though, I find the film most interesting for the ways it foregrounds the fact that, when recounting someone’s story, editing takes place even when the filmmaker never cuts.
    • I’m Not There (Todd Haynes) — On most days, it’s my favorite film of the year. It went from “interesting” to “great” during the second viewing, when I realized that Godard is at least as important to the film as Dylan. I’m Not There is closer in spirit to a Don DeLillo novel than a biopic. It’s about a specific historical moment — the period roughly between the inauguration of JFK to the end of the Vietnam War — when the image won and what we call postmodernism was born, and, more specifically, it’s about the constant slippage between our culture of images and real political power. Haynes gets my Director of the Year Award. Also, I still can’t believe that the Heath Ledger and Charlotte Gainsbourg scenes are: 1. My favorite part of the film, and 2. An even more enjoyable throwback to the New Wave than Christophe Honore’s Dans Paris.
    • Inland Empire / More Things That Happened (David Lynch) — My other favorite of the year. I finally “got” Lynch in 2007, and this film more than any other captures what I most admire about him. Grab any random snippet from Inland Empire and you’ll find something strange and beautiful that is full of earned emotion, written in the distinct hand of its maker. A day after seeing it, I’m tempted to say the same of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd.
    • Munyurangabo (Lee Isaac Chung) — Chung’s is far and away the best debut film I saw in 2007. It’s a beautiful character piece that melds Western and African cinematic sensibilities in illuminating, non-didactic ways. I can’t wait to see what he does next. And speaking of films from/about Africa, my favorite final scene of the year goes to Mahamat-Saleh Haroun’s Daratt. Heartbreaking.
    • Secret Sunshine (Lee Chang-dong) — Lee’s is the best of several great Korean films I saw this year that blend melodrama with genre and socio-political critique. They’re more pathos- and plot-driven than the films I typically watch, but they’re also unpredictable, smart, and, at times, startlingly transgressive. See also Im Sang-soo’s The Old Garden and Bong Joon-ho’s The Host.
    • Useless (Jia Zhang-ke) — Less epic and refined than last year’s combo of Still Life and Dong, Useless is nonetheless a work of subtle complexity. For another rich essay on memory and art-making, see also Heddy Honigmann’s Forever.
    • Une Vieille Maitresse (Catherine Breillat) — After watching nearly all of Breillat’s films this year, I’ve come to think more highly of her as an essayist than a filmmaker. She’s at her best when she’s grounded in naturalism, as in Une Vieille Maitresse, and I really enjoyed seeing her aesthetic mashed-up with all of those period trappings. (Asia Argento and Roxane Mesquida in corsets!) It was a good year for sexy French period pieces, generally. I also loved Pascale Ferran’s Lady Chatterley and Rohmer’s Les Amours d’Astree et de Celadon.
    • Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge (Hou Hsiao-hsien) — That shot of the painting near the end of the film? The one that slowly pulls in and out of focus, finally catching the faces of the children in reflection? Best shot of the year, and a perfect example of why Hou’s newest film will always appear on my year-end list.

    Favorite Film Discoveries of 2007

    Limited to one film per director. Otherwise it would consist only of films by Watkins, Costa, Ray, and Tourneur.

    1. Les Bons Debarras (Francis Mankiewicz, 1980)
    2. Cat People (Jacques Tourneur, 1942)
    3. Edvard Munch (Peter Watkins, 1974)
    4. Fireworks (Kenneth Anger, 1947)
    5. High School (Frederick Wiseman, 1968)
    6. No Quarto de Vanda (Pedro Costa, 2000)
    7. Sicilia! (Straub and Huillet, 1999)
    8. They Live By Night (Nicholas Ray, 1948)
    9. Time Indefinite (Ross McElwee, 1993)
    10. The Tree of Wooden Clogs (Ermanno Olmi, 1978)

    And Special Recognition to . . .

    The Wire — If Berlin Alexanderplatz, Histoire(s) du Cinema, and Scenes from a Marriage can be discussed as films, then so should each season of The Wire. What David Simon, Ed Burns, and their crew at HBO have accomplished isn’t television. It’s the best traditional narrative filmmaking on display anywhere in America right now. And in the process, it also offers a kind of prolonged economic analysis that I never imagined possible from this medium. I’ve only watched the first two seasons so far, so expect to see mentions of seasons 3-5 this time next year.

  • A Quick Thought on Lynch and Film Violence

    A Quick Thought on Lynch and Film Violence

    I watched nearly all of David Lynch’s shorts, films, and television episodes this year, many of them for the first time. After being ambivalent about him for the longest time, I’m now a full-fledged convert. My Damascus experience came midway through the first season of Twin Peaks, when I found myself suddenly and unexpectedly overwhelmed by the deep sorrow that pervades the Laura Palmer story. While watching Inland Empire again last night, it occurred to me that one reason I’m completely unconvinced by all of the critical praise being heaped on the Coens’ treatment of evil and violence in No Country for Old Men is because violence — real, non-metaphoric violence — is always sorrowful and tragic. Lynch seems to have been born with a peculiar sensitivity to that fact, and has spent his career perfecting the formal means of articulating it.

  • Casa de Lava (1994)

    Casa de Lava (1994)

    Dir. by Pedro Costa

    Pedro Costa’s second feature, Casa de Lava, opens with a barrage of arresting juxtapositions. The first few minutes pass in complete silence as we watch the simple white-on-black credits, followed by a montage of volcanoes. It’s found footage, I assume — all grainy and pulsing, like scenes from a seventh grade science documentary — but Costa’s syncopated cutting turns it strange and abstract. Music enters at the two-minute mark, and it’s likewise complex and counter-rhythmic. Paul Hindemith’s viola sonata serves double duty here. Its atonal bursts of dissonance disturb the beauty of the nature sequence, but it also alludes to High Modernism and acknowledges the “outsider” perspective of the filmmaker. This film about Cape Verde, the former Portuguese colony off the west coast of Senegal, is the work of a Portuguese director and a European economy, and it would certainly find its largest audiences among First World festival-goers and cineastes.

    The sonata continues, but Costa next cuts together a montage of miniature portraits. He frames the women of Cape Verde in close-up, shooting their hands, the backs of their heads, and, most often, their expressionless faces. The women share several particular traits: thick eyebrows, pronounced cheekbones, freckles, and whisps of hair on their upper lips. They have centuries of colonialism, slave trade, and miscegenation written into their DNA. As for why Costa shoots only women: in the closing seconds of the sonata’s fourth movement, Costa cuts to what we eventually learn is a construction site in Lisbon, where several Cape Verdean men are working. It’s really a remarkable feat of filmmaking. In less than three-and-a-half minutes Costa has established the central conflict of the film — that is, the perilous relationship between colonizer and colonized and the complex history (economic, political, cultural, and familial) they continue to share — and he’s also implicated himself and the audience in that history.

    The feat is even more impressive given the mixed quality of Costa’s first film, O Sangue, which, while stunning to look at, doesn’t quite work aesthetically or even at a basic narrative level. It’s a very personal film — the first of Costa’s many attempts to rescue on celluloid the family he was denied, personally, as a child — but like many first films its admirable ambitions are hampered by inexperience and by a too-obvious debt to his influences. (O Sangue is the only Costa feature I’ve seen only once, so I’ll leave it at that.) By contrast, Casa de Lava is much more assured and coherent. Costa claims to have begun the project out of anger with Portugal’s turn to the right amidst the formation of the European Union, which precipitated a dramatic restructuring of the nation’s economy, including the privitization of television. The few sources of funding in Portugal’s small film economy dried up. “I was so disgusted that I told Paolo [Branco, his producer] that if he’d give me some money I’d go to Africa and make something there.” (See Mark Peranson’s “Pedro Costa: An Introduction” in Cinema Scope 27 for the rest of the interview. It’s well worth tracking down.)

    Casa de Lava (Costa)

    Costa’s own description of Casa de Lava reads like a ghost story:

    In the beginning there is noise, desperation and abuse. Mariana wants to get out of hell. She reaches out her hand to a half dead man, Leao. It’s only natural, Mariana is full of life and thinks that maybe the two of them can escape from hell together.

    On the way, she believes that she is bringing the dead man to the world of the living. Seven days and nights later, she realises she was wrong. She brought a living man among the dead.

    Like a mash-up of Jacques Tourneur’s I Walked with a Zombie and Claire Denis’s Chocolat, Casa de Lava concerns a young woman, Mariana (Ines de Medeiros), whose exotic notions about the Other are tested and refuted by first-hand experience. The hell she wishes to escape is the mundane, lonely existence of her daily life as a nurse in a Lisbon hospital. Costa connects Mariana with her supposed savior, Leao (Chocolat‘s Isaach de Bankole), early in the film, when, after being injured at the construction site, he is brought to her in a coma. It’s another fascinating and unusually efficient sequence of images. We first see Leao at the site, staring without expression into the distance; then the film cuts to another worker, who is bringing news of Leao’s fall to the foreman. (Or, I assume he’s speaking to the foreman. Costa rarely uses reaction shots.) As with Lento’s fall in Colossal Youth, Costa ellides the accident itself and, instead, cuts to a low-angle shot of Mariana, presumably at work, as two hands reach upward and grab her face. Costa reuses the same low-angle shot in his next film, Ossos, again with a patient reaching for a nurse. The image is uncanny and terrifying, like a final, desperate struggle before death wins out.

    Any illusions Mariana has about the romantic allure of Cape Verde are challenged from the moment she arrives there. Dropped off in a barren field by helicopter, she finds herself alone with Leao’s still-unconscious body. And when she does finally find her way to the small medical clinic (a former leper colony), she’s frustrated to discover a general apathy about her patient’s condition. Like so much Post-Colonial art, Casa de Lava explores the various ways in which meaning is interpreted and reconstructed by competing powers. The film is full of ambiguities, in the best sense of the word. Mariana is forever asking the Cape Verdeans to speak in Portuguese rather than Creole. “I don’t understand you,” she repeats again and again. When she finds a love letter written to Edith, an elderly colonialist whose pension is a boon to the local economy, Mariana can’t help but misinterpret its significance. (It’s the same letter, by the way, that Ventura recites throughout Colossal Youth.)

    Casa de Lava (Costa)

    “You ate our food. You drank our wine. Maybe it turned your head. Not even the dead rest here. Don’t you hear them?”

    And yet Mariana can’t help but be seduced by the Otherness of Cape Verde. The image above captures her at her most deeply enchanted, lost in the music that surrounds her. Except for O Sangue, which features a lush and oddly romantic score, Costa’s films employ very little non-diegetic music. The Hindemith sonata is a notable exception, but it serves as a weighted counterpoint to the diegetic fiddle music played throughout the film. Typically, Costa uses diegetic music to establish a kind of domestic community (as in his many indoor dance scenes) or to invoke nostalgia (see Dave McDougall’s post about “Labanta Braco” in Colossal Youth.) Here, the music is one more seducer that tricks Mariana into believing that she is the object of desire. It’s also one more language that she invariably misinterprets.

    Mariana only realizes her mistake — that she has “brought a living man among the dead” — in the film’s closing sequence. Appropriately, the final images in the film resist simple interpretation. Without spoiling the plot, I’ll say only that Mariana witnesses two events that shatter the illusions that had sustained her during her week in Cape Verde: that she was a source of health and healing for the wounded people there, and that she held sexualized power over them. At her moment of awakening, Costa frames Mariana in a still close-up and, for only a few seconds, brings back the non-diegetic viola music. When the music ends, so does her story. Costa concludes Casa de Lava, however, with two last shots that demonstrate what we could maybe call post-colonial inertia. In the first, a band of musicians, all of them men, sets off on one more trip to Portugal, where they are seeking work. (“Everyone wants to leave” is a common refrain throughout the film.) Despite more than three decades of independence, Cape Verde is still inextricably bound to its colonial founders, and the cycle continues. The final shot is more enigmatic. It’s another portrait of the same nameless woman pictured at the top of this post. She returns in a similar role in Ossos, acting as a kind of silent, iconic witness. I think Costa’s ethic is located in that face.

  • Costa Close-Ups

    “When one is in prison, the most important thing is the door” — Robert Bresson

    At almost the exact midpoint of his second feature, Casa de Lava, Pedro Costa cuts together three close-ups of locked doors. It’s unlike any other sequence in the film, and there’s no real narrative motivation for it. As he will do throughout his next film, Ossos, Costa floods the soundtrack with the sound of a crying child.

  • Seeking Film Suggestions

    Seeking Film Suggestions

    For a couple years now, I’ve been meeting with some friends once or twice a month to eat lunch and discuss a movie. We’ve always taken turns picking films, sometimes grouping the choices around a particular theme or genre, but it’s been a fairly random affair. Since leaving academia, this group has been a lifesaver — my one regular opportunity to have a rigorous intellectual discussion without apology or embarrassment. The other members have become good friends, and, importantly, I’ve come to really trust them. Even when they don’t particularly like a film, I can always count on them to engage with it honestly and on its own terms. I’m guessing other cinephiles will be able to sympathize with me on this somewhat odd point: Sharing a loved film with others involves some emotional risk-taking. I don’t trust Beau Travail and The Son to just anyone. (To their credit, my friends all loved those films, which were two of my first, strategically-chosen picks.)

    We’ve hit a point where we want to rethink our group a bit, so after a fun discussion yesterday it was decided that, instead of choosing individual films, we’d take turns programming and moderating short series. I’m going first and have settled on the New Wave as a topic. Before I joined, the group watched Breathless, and a few months ago we did My Night at Maud’s. We’re going to begin the series with The 400 Blows, which none of the others have seen, and then I’m probably going to pick a late-60s Godard, maybe Week End or Two or Things I Know About Her. But what I’m most excited about is picking contemporary films that allude in various ways to the New Wave. So, for example, I’m starting with the Truffaut so that we can later watch Tsai’s What Time Is It There? I’m playing with other ideas but would be curious to hear suggestions:

    What films would you show to illustrate the spirit and lasting influence of the New Wave? And what are some of your favorite reads on the subject?

  • 2007 TIFF Day 8

    2007 TIFF Day 8

    I’ve liked, to varying degrees, each of the films in Gus Van Sant’s “post-Bela Tarr epiphany” trilogy. Following his brief stint in Hollywood in the mid- to late-’90s, Van Sant has taken a refreshingly reckless approach toward film form. Under the spell of the mad Hungarian but also those guys from Taiwan and Tehran (Hou and Kiarostami, in particular), his films are unlike anything else coming out of the States. And God bless him for it. When I watch these movies, I feel like a lucky volunteer in one of Van Sant’s mad experiments. “Yeah, Gus,” I think to myself, “let’s see what happens when, during a five-minute tracking shot, we shift suddenly into slow motion. Let’s meld unironically beautiful music with images of teenage life just to see what kind of frisson we can generate. Matt Damon and Casey Affleck walking silently through a desert for minutes at a time? I’m with you. Let’s go.”

    Any ambivalence I’ve felt toward Van Sant has usually been a by-product of his subject matter. Paranoid Park picks up exactly where the trilogy left off: at a moment of sudden violence. This time it’s an accidental death resulting from a run-of-the-mill act of adolescent rebellion. As was the case with Gerry, Elephant, and Last Days, I’m not sure why Van Sant is so fixated on violence, and I’m not totally convinced that he has anything particularly meaningful to teach us about it. When she introduced Une vieille maitresse, Catherine Breillat told us she was interested in “the kind of Romance that isn’t pink and flowery but deep red and black and always close to death” (I’m paraphrasing), and I see Van Sant operating in a similar realm. He’s become our Ann Radcliffe, trading out her castle in the Pyrenees for a skate park in Portland but with the same goal in mind: the Sublime. Paranoid Park is my new favorite of Van Sant’s films, but I remain ambivalent about his subject matter. One last thing: seeing Christopher Doyle’s 4:3 compositions projected on a three-story screen at the ScotiaBank Theatre was a real treat and confirmed my thoughts about Reygadas.

    Help Me Eros gave me everything I’d expected of it: an amusing and sympathetic, low-key performance from writer/director Lee Kang-sheng; long, mostly-silent, static takes; inspired design; out-of-left-field musical numbers; and some good old-fashioned transgression. Lee plays a Bible-quoting day trader who went bust during Taiwan’s economic downturn and now spends his time smoking home-grown marijuana, talking to a counselor at a suicide helpline, and flirting with the girls at the betel nut stall below his apartment. Lee told us after the screening that much of the film is autobiographical — that in order to keep himself occupied between films, he’d made and lost a great deal of wealth in the market, and that the one time he called a helpline he got a busy signal. “I wondered how many other people in Taiwan were suffering,” he said. With Tsai Ming-liang acting as producer and production designer, it’s impossible to not speculate about his influence on the development of the film. But I suspect their partnership is a generous one, and Help Me Eros makes me think that Lee should, perhaps, be considered more seriously as a co-auteur of Tsai’s recent films. Help Me Eros fits comfortably alongside their other treatments of contemporary alienation and is distinguished, mostly, by its final image, which is more symbol-heavy and explicitly religious than anything we’ve seen from Tsai. The film drags a bit in the final act, but, all in all, it’s a solid and interesting effort.

    A quick story: While waiting in line for Naissance des pieuvres, I met a 70-year-old woman from Toronto who was seeing 50 films at the festival. She used to see even more, apparently, but her children made her swear off Midnight Madness. When I asked her what film she’d really liked, she said, “Oh, I loved Mongol. Talk about violence. That guy makes Tarrantino look like a pussy!” I was sipping from a bottle of water at the time and nearly died. Anyway, she and I had a conversation I’ve had many times over the years. When I mentioned how much I’d liked Secret Sunshine and Flight of the Red Balloon, she told me, “I traded those tickets away. I heard they were depressing.” I think what she actually meant was that they were “slow, boring, and/or sad.” They’re not, but that’s beside the point.

    I blame Bergman. When he came to prominence in the States in the late-1950s his films contributed greatly to the creation of a certain stereotype in the popular imagination: the Important Art Film — a dour, high-minded, angst-ridden thing that must be consumed like bitter medicine. (I hate to think of all the people over the years who have rented The Seventh Seal because of its reputation and never made a second trip back to the Foreign Film aisle.) The influence of that stereotype can still be felt at today’s festivals, both in the lines, where even devoted film buffs dismiss movies that might fit the mold, and in the films themselves.

    This is all a long and unfair preamble to Nanouk Leopold’s finely-acted family drama, Wolfsbergen. It’s about an aged man who has decided that he is tired of life and eager to be reunited with his long-dead wife. He informs his family that he will soon die, and the film follows the ripples of his decision through the lives of his children and grandchildren. They are a dysfunctional lot, to say the least, but had Leopold given each character the same time and careful attention, all could have been interesting enough to carry a film on their own, I think. Instead, some are barely fleshed out at all, and I found myself becoming increasingly curious about the people who were too often left off screen. Wolfsbergen wears the old stereotype well, and even I was a tad depressed by it. The final scene is a good one, though — good enough that I was forced to reevaluate my response to the film as a whole. And one last note about film aspect ratios: I have no idea why this film was shot in Cinemascope. Leopold often divides her wide frame in half and pushes characters to one side. This, I guess, mimics their alienation from one another, but too often she seems unsure about how to fill the image, and so we end up looking at out-of-focus walls and doorways. I wonder if the aspect ratio was chosen to accommodate the last shot, which does put ‘Scope to great use?

    The less I say about L’Amour Cache, the better. I programmed it because Isabelle Hupert is one of the few actors I treat as an auteur, but she is wasted here. This film is a disaster. In fact, it might be the first film I’ve ever seen that gets demonstrably worse with each and every cut. Poorly written, poorly directed, and incompetently edited. I never thought I’d see a boom mike in a TIFF film from a First World country.

  • 2007 TIFF Day 7

    2007 TIFF Day 7

    By the midpoint of Une vieille maitresse I already knew that Catherine Breillat would be my next project. I’ve always been a bit intimidated by her reputation, I think, which is why I chose this film to be my introduction to her work. A period piece reputed to be relatively tame by Breillat’s standards, Une vieille maitresse proved to be one of my great surprises at the festival. The film is built around a classic love triangle. The rakish Ryno de Marigny is soon to wed Hermangarde, a precious young aristocrat, and, so, has agreed to abandon his ten-year affair with Vellini, a stereotypically hot-blooded, dark-haired Spaniard. In this battle between a Man, his Madonna, and his Whore (and the archetypes were surely part of the appeal for Breillat), there’s a kind of dialectic created between the public sphere of mannered, polite society and the private places where desire and emotion are freed. Much of the film’s action occurs in a flashback, as Marigny recounts his relationship with Vellini to Hermangarde’s grandmother, a disarmingly frank “18th century woman” (as she describes herself) who acts as his confessor. The posh parlor where Marigny tells his tale exists somewhere between the two spheres of conflict, and Breillat seems as interested in the seductions that occur there as she does with anything that happens in Marigny’s bedroom.

    Which isn’t to say that the goings-on between the rake and his women are anything less than fascinating. Une vieille maitresse features a show-stopper of a sex scene, a verbal and physical battle between Marigny and Vellini that leaves them both exhausted and satisfied — temporarily, at least. Mid-coitus, Vellini begins to tease Marigny about his most recent lover, a woman he admits is bumbling and cold in the bedroom. The power struggle between them is brilliant to watch, as each tests and transgresses the other’s limits. It probably goes without saying that Asia Argento steals every scene, but Breillat’s staging of their bodies, more than anything else, is what has provoked my curiosity about her work.

    Redacted. In March 2006, a small band of American soldiers raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl then murdered the child and her family in order to cover up their crime. If you’re imagination is so withered that, after reading that sentence, you’re unable to extrapolate from it the many and various tragedies it contains, maybe you should go see Redacted. Brian De Palma seems to think it will help. (If irony and righteous anger are good enough for De Palma, they’re good enough for me.)

    Dans la ville de Sylvie* opens with a long, static medium shot of the film’s nameless protagonist sitting alone on his bed, staring intently into the distance. By the end of the seventh day of TIFF, I’d become accustomed to shots like this. The long, static take has come to define an aesthetic that’s en vogue at international festivals these days. (I wonder if it isn’t becoming a new “Tradition of Quality,” in fact.) But there was something slightly different about this particular image, because the character was clearly thinking intently as well. Rather than being a purely formal experience, another moment of cinematic contemplation, this was also narrative. And, sure enough, after several minutes of staring silently, the protagonist (director Jose Luis Guerin calls him “the dreamer”) completes his thought, takes up his pencil, and scribbles into his notebook. He’s a poet and artist, we learn, and he’s recently arrived in Strasbourg, the French town where, six years earlier, he’d met a young student named Sylvie.

    I knew I’d found my favorite film of the festival when, two or three minutes into an early sequence at a streetside cafe, it became apparent that we wouldn’t be leaving anytime soon. Guerin was having too much fun with that old cinematic war horse, the Kuleshov Effect, forcing his audience into the perspective of “the dreamer” and, in the process, making one of those films sure to pique the curiosity (and possibly the outrage) of the Mulveyites: a film about men looking at women. It sounds so simple (and simple-minded, even) now that I’ve described Sylvie, but the film is so perfectly executed that, even on a second viewing, I found myself completely seduced by it. And I use the word “seduced” quite deliberately. There’s no denying the male, heteronormative gaze adopted by Guerin’s camera, and I worry that I’m too quick to defend a film that has given me only what the cinema always gives me: free license to oggle women. But something curious happens over the course of Sylvie. By the final sequence, which echoes the earlier cafe scene, we’ve been retrained in a new way of looking. Perhaps I should only speak for myself here, but I felt my gaze become desexualized. The women who walk into and out of “the dreamer’s” frame are no longer just obscure objects of desire. Instead, each takes on that same strange character we find in Tarkovsky’s heroines. I usually name the shot of Margarita Terekhova sitting on the fence in Mirror as my all-time favorite movie image, and the last ten minutes of Sylvie plays like an avant-garde remix of it.

    * a.k.a. En la Ciudad de Sylvia or In the City of Sylvia. Why her name changes from Sylvie to Sylvia I don’t know, because it’s definitely Sylvie in the film.

  • 2007 TIFF Day 6

    2007 TIFF Day 6

    I don’t see much point in writing about Carlos Reygadas’s Silent Light without mentioning the final scene, so consider this your warning: SPOILERS AHEAD. Both of Reygadas’s previous features, Japon and Battle in Heaven, use a subjective camera to achieve what I’ve developed the lazy habit of calling “Transcendence” — that is, they use formal means to represent cinematically the extra-worldly or extra-Rational or Metaphysical or whatever you want to call it. Silent Light is being praised as a significant departure for Reygadas — mostly, I suspect, because of its relative lack of transgression. But the bigger surprise to me is how staid, almost conventional, his camera has become. Silent Light is one of the most beautifully lensed films of the festival, and the opening and closing sequences are stunners, but Reygadas here dips less often into his impressive bag of aural and cinematographic tricks. Although I was actually a bit disappointed by this development (I like his tricks), that’s not a criticism. Rather, I see this as a transition work in which he is attempting to shift a heavier burden over to narrative and drama. And apparently he’s been revisiting the old masters for inspiration: Bresson, Bergman, and Tarkovsky are all over this film. And then there’s Dreyer, who Reygadas “covers” here by restaging the climax of Ordet. A remake of THE great moment of transcendence in all of film history?! The cajones of this guy. (See that? I used Spanish there.) Silent Light is a fascinating experiment, and it’s very likely a brilliant film, but I’m still processing. The climactic scene did not move me at all, and I’m genuinely curious to know why. From the opening moments of Battle in Heaven, the first of his films that I saw, I’ve trusted Reygadas completely, so I’m confident that Silent Light realizes his ambitions. I’m just not sure yet what, precisely, those ambitions are. Or, to put it even more bluntly, I don’t understand this film. I really don’t. And I can’t wait to see it again. One other throw away observation: With a few notable exceptions, the filmmakers to whom Reygadas is most indebted worked in the Academy ratio (4:3), and I can’t help but wonder what he would do with it. His ‘Scope compositions are gorgeous, of course, but they seemed to me too plastic at times here.

    Contre Toute Esperance was my first encounter with Quebecoise filmmaker Bernard Emond. (Any pointers for tracking down his earlier work would be much appreciated.) Emond told us after the screening that it is the second film of a planned trilogy about the three Christian virtues: faith, hope, and charity. “I am not a believer,” he said, “but I cherish my Catholic tradition.” Contre Toute Esperance is an angry, political film that poses the questions, “How does one remain hopeful in a world turned by amoral market forces? And what role, if any, can the Christian tradition play in generating hope?” Contre Toute Esperance centers on Rejeanne Poulin, a woman who is forced to support her young husband after he suffers a stroke, only to lose her job at the telephone company where she works as an operator. The film plays like a bit of old fashioned Naturalism, with good people suffering (and suffering) the whims of an indifferent universe. Except that Emond creates, through formal gestures, a kind of holy space for his characters to inhabit. I can only imagine how many gallons of blue paint were sacrificed in the production of this film — the walls are blue, passing trucks are blue, clothes are blue, and the seas of blue are punctuated only by occasional bursts of deep red and purple. I suspect that the key to the film’s design is a brief scene in which Rejeanne visits a church to pray. In a high-angle shot, we look down on her kneeling at a pew, a long blue carpet running up the center aisle beside her. The entire world of the film, I think, exists symbolically within that church, making it (the world) a place of potential sacrifice, ritual, and dignity.

    Another work by a young female director, Naissance des pieuvres is a fascinating coming-of-age story that revolves around a central metaphor so perfect I’m surprised it hasn’t been used before: synchronized swimming. We first meet the three central characters at a competition. Anne, overweight and brash, competes with the younger girls; Floriane, an early-developed beauty, captains the top team; and Marie, a gangly tomboy, watches intently from the bleachers, seduced by the beauty of it all. Much to her credit, first-time filmmaker Celine Sciamma takes advantage of the obvious symbolic resonances without stooping to sentiment. All team sports make ripe settings for teen films — the struggle to fit in while retaining one’s individuality and all that — but synchronized swimming amplifies the tropes. With their garish makeup and aggressive smiles, the girls are performing a kind of make-believe femininity akin to drag. And they’re doing it all in bathing suits, which expose, literally, the strange bodies that inevitably influence each girl’s sense of self. At the risk of sounding like a dirty old man, I’ll admit to a special fondness for coming-of-age films about girls, made by women directors. (I’d include Claire Denis’s Nenette et Boni, Lucretia Martel’s The Holy Girl, and Tamara Jenkins’s The Slums of Beverly Hills on my short list of favorites.) Adolescence was not a good time for me — I was “husky” (or so read the label on my corduroy pants) and had braces — but I was never so keanly aware of my body as are the girls in these films.

  • TIFF 2007: In a Nutshell

    TIFF 2007: In a Nutshell

    I was tired when I arrived in Toronto this year and never quite recovered. Which isn’t to say that I was disappointed by the festival. In fact, the average film quality this year was better than any of the past fests I’ve attended. But the pangs of home-sickness and the bouts with movie fatigue kicked in a few days earlier than I would have liked, and by Saturday night I was ready to get on a plane.

    I intend to post capsule reviews of every film I saw, but it’ll probably take another week before I get through them all. In the meantime, here’s a snapshot of the festival.

    Masterpieces
    This will likely end up on my short list of favorite films of the decade:

    • Dans la ville de Sylvie (Jose Luis Guerin)

    Stand Outs
    All will be on my Top 20 of 2007 (by order of preference):

    • Secret Sunshine (Chang-dong Lee)
    • Le Voyage du ballon rouge (Hou Hsiao-hsien)
    • Une vieille maitresse (Catherine Breillat)
    • Les Amours d’Astrée et de Céladon (Eric Rohmer)
    • Fengming, a Chinese Memoir (Wang Bing)
    • At Sea (Peter Hutton)
    • Useless (Jia Zhang-ke)
    • Paranoid Park (Gus Van Sant)
    • Silent Light (Carlos Reygadas)
    • The Man from London (Bela Tarr)
    • Schindler’s Houses (Heinz Emigholz)
    • My Winnipeg (Guy Maddin)
    • Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind (John Gianvito)

    Stand Out Older Film
    From the Canadian Open Vault

    • Les Bons Debarras (Francis Mankiewicz)

    Strong Recommendations
    If TIFF weren’t so strong, these could all be Stand Outs (by order of preference):

    • Help Me Eros (Lee Kang-sheng)
    • Naissance des pieuvres (Celine Sciamma)
    • Avant que j’oublie (Jacques Nolot)
    • Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud)

    Solid Films
    I enjoyed each of these for a variety of reasons and would recommend them all (by order of preference):

    • In Memory of Myself (Saverio Costanzo)
    • La fille coupee en deux (Claude Chabrol)
    • Mourning Forest (Naomi Kawase)
    • Contre tout esperance (Bernard Emond)
    • Encarnacion (Anahi Berneri)
    • One Hundred Nails (Ermanno Olmi)
    • Wolfsbergen (Nanouk Leopold)
    • Ne touchez pas la hache (Jacques Rivette)
    • Mutum (Sandra Kogut)
    • XXY (Lucia Puenzo)
    • No Country for Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen)

    Frustrations and Disappointments
    Three this year (by order of preference):

    • Redacted (Brian De Palma)
    • Elizabeth: The Golden Age (Shekhar Kapur)
    • L’amour cache (Alessandro Capone)

    Wavelengths
    Among my favorite shorts from the Wavelengths programs were films by: Ute Aurand and Maria Lang, Hannes Schupbach, Bruce McClure, Pip Chodorov, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, and Daichi Saito. I also still like the Ken Jacobs and Charlotte Pryce films that I mentioned back in May.

    Walk Outs
    None, but only because I was sitting in the center of the aisle and only a few feet away from the director of L’Amour cache and didn’t want to make a scene.

    Skips and Reschedules
    I skipped three films this year: La citadelle assiegee, because I decided to join Girish for dinner; Margot at the Wedding, because the buzz was lukewarm and I wanted to spend the afternoon writing; and Import Export, because it was a late night screening and I was exhausted. I wish I could have seen the Seidl film because everyone said it was great. Due to some schedule shuffling on the last two days, I also missed Dans la vie, Munyurangabo, L’Acadie, L’Acadie?!?, Ploy, and Sad Vacation.

  • 2007 TIFF Day 5

    2007 TIFF Day 5

    I’m the wrong person to write about No Country for Old Men. It’s exactly the film I was expecting, so I’m not sure why I came away from it so disappointed. The crowd had something to do with my reaction, I’m sure. As with Cronenberg’s A History of Violence, which I saw here two years ago, also at the massive Ryerson auditorium, I was surrounded again by viewers who laughed at and applauded the bone breaking and blood splattering. I don’t blame them, really. The Coens give Javier Bardim many of the best lines. His ruthless murderer, Anton Chigurh, has an irresistible charisma, which I’m sure will be interpreted as the seductive power of Evil or something. But I just don’t really care. It’ll win a million Oscars.

    I deliberately scheduled several films this year from South America, and also films by young female directors. I think I’m in search of another Lucretia Martel. Encarnacion is Anahi Berneri’s second narrative feature, following 2005’s A Year Without Love, which I’m now curious to see. I enjoy finding films like Encarnacion at TIFF — small character pieces that get the details right. Erni, the film’s protagonist, fits somewhere in that long line of movie heroines who, having reached a certain age, find their beauty fading and their place in the world less secure. I couldn’t help but think of All About Eve, Opening Night, and All About My Mother. Twenty years past her heydays as a calendar pin-up and B-movie queen, Erni now lives alone in Buenos Aires, where she continues to hustle for work on television and in commercials. The dramatic line of the film takes her back to her home town, where she reunites with her disapproving sister and helps to initiate her beloved niece into adolescence. The strength of the film, though, is Silvia Perez’s performance as Erni. A character who could very easily be made maudlin or pathetic has, instead, a curious grace and independence. I love the scenes between her and her occasional lover. A kind of Third Wave hero, she visits and leaves him at her own will.

    Last summer, Nick Rhombes offered a couple fun posts about the “radical beauty” of contemporary CGI spectacles. Watching Superman Returns while listening to his randomly shuffling iPod proved an interesting experience, he writes. “My theory is that we don’t see the beauty and artistry of these CGI films because we have never really learned how to appreciate them. Watching them with random music frees us from the prison-house of narrative compulsion; we see them with new eyes. With open eyes.” When I wasn’t laughing at the ridiculous trainwreck of a film that is Elizabeth: The Golden Age, I was thinking of Nick’s posts. There comes a point when these Hollywood picture shows become so incoherent, when the camera movements become so unmotivated, and when the performances become so irrelevant that there’s nothing left on screen but pure Surrealist spectacle. And people say avant-garde cinema can’t find an audience.

    Wavelengths concluded this year with a performance of Bruce McClure’s Everytwo Circumflicksrent…Page 298. Before the screening, McClure passed out ear plugs, telling us that he had come to accept that loud noise was an essential component of his process but that he recognized others might not be so disposed. He also expressed an interest in the ways that audiences choose to modify their experience of art — wearing ear plugs to rock shows, for example. His performance featured two modified projectors, each displaying a small circle of light that flickered and shifted focus. The soundtracks of each film had been altered by hand, and the rhythmic loops generated by them were then processed through two guitar pedals, which McClure “played” live. The result was overwhelming — loud, disorienting, hypnotic. At the risk of slipping into cliche, I would call it a performance of elemental cinema: sound and light projected in time. It was a great way to cap the Wavelengths programs.

  • 2007 TIFF Day 4

    2007 TIFF Day 4

    Lucia Puenzo’s XXY, in case you haven’t heard, is a coming-of-age story about a hermaphrodite. Alex has lived the first fifteen years of her life as a girl, but the inevitable onset of sexual desire — bewildering enough to those of us not suffering from gender confusion — has done a number on her and also on her parents, who have gone out of their way to protect Alex from discrimination and from the well-intentioned curiosity of doctors. Rather than castrate Alex as an infant, they decided to allow her to choose her gender when she was ready. XXY examines the consequences of that decision. What I most liked about the film was its treatment of that post-pubescent madness we all suffered through. Another important character, a young boy struggling with some sexual confusion of his own, is as awkward, gangly, and desperate for affection as Alex is. I actually wish Alex had been a “normal” girl or boy because the enormity of her “situation” dominated every scene, allowing little breathing room for the characters to transcend the roles as written. I believe it was the Variety reviewer who described XXY as a very good after school special. A bit harsh maybe, but not far from my own take.

    Secret Sunshine. I hate to write capsule reviews of films like this — sprawling, complex stories that pull off the remarkable feat of being simultaneously tragic, charming, inscrutable, and sublime. The tone of this thing could have collapsed at any moment; Lee Chang-dong is some kind of genius for pulling it off. Secret Sunshine is about a young woman, Shin-ae, who moves with her son to the small town where her now-deceased husband was born and raised. There she meets several locals, including a persistent suitor (Song Kang-ho in my favorite performance of the year), a pack of gossipy housewives, and a pharmacist who is convinced that Shin-ae would find true happiness if only she would turn her life over to Christ. After several plot turns that I refuse to spoil, Secret Sunshine becomes, among many other things, the truest depiction of evangelical Christianity I’ve seen on film. Fortunately, Lee’s film is not evangelical itself and, instead, wrestles with the strangeness and disappointments of faith in a way that The Mourning Forest, with its contrivances, could only mimic. Damn, I love this film.

    And speaking of wrestling with faith (which, by the way, is far and away the dominant recurring theme of this year’s festival, or at least of my programmed version of it). I’ve gotten in the habit of describing Saverio Costanzo’s In Memory of Myself as a genre film, a suspense thriller in which the central, driving mystery is faith. It might be strangest film I’ve seen all week, with shades of Kubrick and Dreyer and a formal rigor I wasn’t expecting and have yet to fully process. I honestly don’t know if it’s a good film but I enjoyed every minute of it. I’m reserving all judgment until after a second viewing, which I hope comes sooner rather than later.

    Hannes Schupbach’s Erzahlung is a commissioned portrait of Cesare Ferronato, an 80-year-old Italian sculptor. I’m a total sucker for films that document the artistic process, especially when they allow us to observe hands in action, but what most charmed me about this 40-minute, silent picture was its focus on Ferronato’s domestic life. There’s a wonderful moment, for example, when we watch him and his wife (I assume) play a game of chess. For Shupbach, there’s no distinction to be drawn between art-making and love and work and community — each is absolutely integral to the other.

    Seeing Heinz Emigholz’s Schindler’s Houses on the massive screen in Varsity 1 was a real treat, but I really wish it had been programmed at any time other than 10 pm on Sunday night. I stayed strong for the first 75 minutes, but the last 25 are a bit of a blur. Fifteen challenging films in three days did me in. Schindler’s Houses is assembled from static shots of the homes and buildings Rudolf Schindler designed in and around Los Angeles between 1921 and 1952. They’re arranged chronologically and include both exterior and, in many cases, interior shots. The sheer quantity of footage has an interesting effect: Rather than the dusty curiosities you might find in a coffee-table collection of architectural photographs, the buildings shift and morph as they find new contexts. They’re domestic spaces that continually evolve to satisfy the tastes of their occupants. They’re material objects with material values (it’s impossible to watch the film and not be reminded of California’s real estate bubble). They’re objets d’art, relics of Modernism. Emigholz matches Schindler’s eye for composition; like Erzahlung this is another meeting of artists. As an aside, I would love to see a remix of this film using only shots of bookshelves (apparently a hallmark of Schindler’s designs). I have a fixation with browsing others’ bookshelves and found myself wanting to linger just a bit longer in front of those we see in the film.

  • 2007 TIFF Day 3

    2007 TIFF Day 3

    Naomi Kawase’s Mourning Forest could be used as a template for the kind of film I love. A slow, moving camera that captures images of nature, with an almost fetishistic fascination with wind blowing through trees and tall grass. Nearly wordless characters, whose desires and pain are expressed instead by their faces, which we’re allowed to watch closely and intimately. A curiosity about essential things like faith and love and loss. Oh, and the desire for transcendence, of course. It’s a ready-made Long Pauses kind of film. Except that it isn’t. Girish and I have been trying to understand why we’re the only people among our group of like-minded friends here who were disappointed by Mourning Forest. (And, for the record, to say that I was disappointed is not to say it isn’t an interesting film.) The story concerns a young woman and elderly man, both of whom have suffered a great loss. For the first half of the film, we watch them going about the routines of daily life at the retirement home where she works and he lives. I was quite liking the film until they began their journey through the forest, at which point I was instantly reminded of other similar, more compelling movies. I think Kawase’s handheld photography was part of the problem for me. It seemed at odds with the tone of the film. But mostly I was frustratingly unmoved by the two leads, and the last image of the film — that inevitable grasp at transcendence — was too calculated and a little clumsy. But don’t listen to me. Everyone else loves it.

    The general consensus at the festival is that The Man from London is minor Tarr. I’ve been ambivalent about the other two films of his that I’ve seen, Damnation and Satantango. As the latter film proved, I will gladly sit for hours and hours and hours in front of his films. (Question of the day: Has any director in the history of cinema had a more distinct style?) The camera moves slowly, the actors speak slowly, the music churns slowly, and as a result “real” time is compressed. I couldn’t believe, when The Man from London ended, that 135 minutes had passed. My qualms with Tarr have always concerned his view of the world, which is too misanthropic for my tastes. Which is probably why his latest film is my favorite of the three. I keep calling it a film noir that was left to simmer over low heat, reducing the genre to its fundamentals: man is trapped, man finds money, man attempts to escape fate. Friends look at me funny when I tell them how much I liked the protagonist, who in typical Tarr fashion has little to say. But in his own way, he’s actually quite tender at times. (That I managed to use the word “tender” here is probably another reason for disappointment from the Tarr loyalists.) As usual, The Man from London is a joy to look at. His camera is still tracking for minutes at a time, and he’s thrown in a couple new tricks. The 12-minute opener is a doozy. Also, Tarr stuck around for a Q&A and didn’t bite off a single head. He was charming, actually, and really funny.

    Jia Zhang-ke’s latest, Useless, is an odd one. Like last year’s documentary, Dong, Useless is a portrait of an artist, though in this case Jia is less concerned with fashion designer Ma Ke, specifically, than with what she represents to China’s leap into consumerism. In a recent interview, Wang Bing (see yesterday’s post on Wang’s latest) mentions that one reason he is not making narrative films right now is because “in China, social changes have come so fast and been so massive, that the opportunities for documentaries are considerable.” I suspect that Jia feels the same way. Useless, the title, comes from the name of Ma Ke’s haute couture line fashioned from traditionally hand-made fabrics. The middle third of Jia’s film documents the line’s impressive debut at Paris’s Fashion Week and includes interviews with Ma in which she waxes nostalgic about the human touch and artistry that is missing from mass-produced clothing. As we’ve learned in the first act of the film, though, Ma is only able to concentrate her efforts on Useless because of the fortune she made with Exception, which seems to be the Chinese equivalent of Banana Republic. Jia opens the film with a tour of the facility where hundreds of workers hunch over sewing machines, manufacturing garments for the chain of Exception store fronts. The shots are mirrored in the second act, when Jia shows two Chinese women hunching over weaving machines to produce the “hand-made” fabrics for Useless. The film ends in a rural mining town, where Jia follows several locals, including two tailors and a former tailor who was forced by the low cost of manufactured clothes to take a job at the mine. This quick summary lays out the macro-structure of Useless, but its the finer points — the visual echoes that reverberate throughout the film, the ironies and ambivalences — that make the film so fascinating. I like it better the more I think about it.

    John Gianvito’s Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind recovers the lost history of class struggle in America by filming, in simple, static shots, the monuments left behind: commemorative plaques, statues, and, most often, cemetery headstones. Gianvito structures the film chronologically and breaks the sequence of shots only on occasion to show images of wind blowing through leaves and grass (shades of Whitman and the Transcendentalists) and to interject jarring hand-drawn animations that represent the impersonal, amoral transactions of capitalism. The relative simplicity of the form allows the film to function pedagogically (I came away with a list of names and events I want to explore), but it also leaves room for the viewer to create connections and find new contexts. We can chart, for example, the movement of civil rights from New England to the South, and, likewise, the movement of manufacturing from the South to the Midwest. Or, in my favorite cut of the film, we learn that the founder of America’s first labor organization lays in an unmarked grave, while, at the same time, Sojourner Truth was being buried under an oversized headstone. In 1883, apparently, an African-American woman could be commemorated with greater honor than a white male labor organizer. Fascinating.

    Ute Aurand and Maria Lang’s The Butterfly in Winter is a 30-minute silent portrait of Lang’s life at home, where she tends to her 96-year-old mother. Each day begins with the opening of her mother’s bedroom window, a glass of water, breakfast, a wash and massage, and ends with a whisper in her hear and the closing of the window. Aurand assembles their life in jump cuts and closeups, revealing the slight variations amid the routine. I like Andrea Picard’s description: “Every day is the same and every day is different.” There’s such beauty and sweetness in the film.

  • 2007 TIFF Days 1 and 2

    2007 TIFF Days 1 and 2

    My favorite scene in Persepolis takes place at a small kitchen table in the childhood home of writer/illustrator/co-director Marjane Satrapi. An anxious neighbor has dropped in to tell them that her 14-year-old son has been recruited to join the fight against Iraq. Satrapi’s mother — fearless, kind, intractable — comforts her friend, promising, “We’ll talk to him.” The scene ends with a simple voice-over: “Because of my parents, the boy did not go to war.” It’s the kind of moment that could very easily have been cut from the film for the sake of pacing. (And Persepolis does, I think, have some minor pacing problems.) But it’s the level of specificity in the scene, and in the film at large, that makes it so compelling. That moment at the kitchen table so radically transformed Satrapi’s understanding of her parents that now, more than two decades later, she’s still meditating on its significance from the vantage of adulthood. I should also add that the film’s animation is a real pleasure to watch — witty, surprising, and beautiful.

    All of Fengming, A Chinese Memoir is summed up in the opening minutes of the first interview. He Fengming takes her seat in front of the camera, where she will remain for nearly all of the next 180 minutes, and begins to tell the story of how her life was forever changed in 1949, when at the age of 17 she left the university to join the staff of a newspaper. “And that,” she laughs, “was the start of my revolutionary career.” Her laugh is sarcastic and a little bitter. “We were so naive back then,” she later tells director Wang Bing. “Back then,” she and her husband were branded as “Rightists” by the Party and were separated from each other and from their two young sons in order to undergo rehabilitation at labor camps. Her husband died in his; she returned briefly to her family before being detained again during the Cultural Revolution. We learn relatively late in the film that Fengming wrote a book-length account of her life in the late-1980s, which proves to be an important detail in understanding the form of Wang’s remarkable film. Shot entirely in long static takes, with only a handful of cuts and quick dissolves, it seems to present an unedited account of Fengming’s story. But her story has been edited — over the course of nearly sixty years, changing slightly with each of the tellings and each of the hours spent hunched over a typewriter and notepad. So, for example, when she describes the night when she discovered her husband had died, her language takes on an uncharacteristic literariness, with extended metaphors and hand-picked symbols. Recounting this most “rehearsed” of her memories, she remains composed and calm, despite the horror and sorrow. When she describes a more recent event, however — one that occurred after she’d written her book and that she’s yet to fully integrate into her life’s narrative — she chokes and sobs. I have two pages of hand-written notes on Fengming, one of my favorite films of the fest, and hope to return to it later.

    Hou Hsiao-hsien might be my favorite living director, so I had assumed that the lukewarm reviews of Le Voyage du Ballon Rouge coming out of Cannes weren’t to be trusted. I was right. At this point, midway through the festival, Voyage is among my two or three favorites. I’m hopeless when it comes to writing about Hou, whose films are visceral and emotional experiences for me. A friend asked after the screening if I thought the red balloon was integral to the film — if it was necessary at all — and I realized in answering that, for me, the balloon had acted as a kind of emotional locus: a splash of color and beauty, less symbol than catalyst or accelerant.

    Last year at the festival, I assumed I had missed something when I came away ambivalent from Manufactured Landscapes. I discovered Friday night that what I had wanted from Jennifer Baichwal’s documentary was, in fact, something closer in spirit to Peter Hutton’s At Sea, a 60-minute, silent triptych about the birth, life, and death of a modern ship. Hutton’s film begins at a massive boatyard in Korea — one of several aspects of At Sea that reminded me of Claire Denis’s L’Intrus — where we watch, in a series of strange and awesome compositions, the workings of modern technology at its most forceful and elegant. In the middle act, Hutton turns his camera to the sea itself. He booked passage on a trans-Atlantic freighter and filmed the water as it churned beneath him and as it turned the moon’s reflection into abstraction. And the final twenty minutes take place on the shores of Bangladesh, where poor men and boys participate in a growing and dangerous trade: breaking ships with their bare hands and the simplest of tools. The structure of the film makes a compelling (if obvious) argument: “The developing world is our dumping ground,” as Hutton said during the Q&A. But that was less interesting to me than the form of his shot selection and cutting. When a member of the audience challenged Hutton, suggesting that his film would be as effective as a series of still photos, Hutton, non-plussed, responded with a phrase I’ll be regurgitating for years. (I’m paraphrasing.) “It’s very difficult for us to watch a silent film today. Cell phones ring. We’re easily distracted. I’m interested in countering the emotional velocity and the visual velocity of contemporary films.” The film’s form, then, which deliberately challenges our “emotional velocity,” offers a more radical political position than its content, I think.

    At the very end of Mutum, a middle-class, urban doctor rides into the isolated Brazilian village where the film takes place and offers a young boy a pair of glasses, opening his eyes to the world around him. I was relieved during the post-screening Q&A to hear director Sandra Kogut acknowledge the similarities between herself and that doctor. I’m deeply ambivalent about films like Mutum. They’re a kind of genre, really — stories of the poor in the developing world, shot by well-educated, middle- to upper-class filmmakers, that are then taken to film festivals, where they’re easily digested by well-educated, middle- to upper-class audiences. A surefire cure for those annoying bouts of liberal guilt that plague folks like me. When children are the focus of the story, it’s even easier. Kogut seems to be aware of all of this and has crafted a solid film from the source material, a classic Brazilian novel by Joao Guimaraes Rosa. The key to the film’s success, I think, is Kogut’s camera, which never escapes the subjective perspective of her protagonist, a ten-year-old boy who struggles to make sense of the adult world around him. Because of that p.o.v., the film is full of ambiguities and, occasionally, oversized emotion. This is Kogut’s first feature, and I look forward to seeing whatever comes next from her.

  • A Few Words About Zodiac

    A Few Words About Zodiac

    David Fincher’s Zodiac is absolutely haunted by the specter of technology and by the present-day confidence we have in its objectivity. Throughout the film, Fincher inserts strange little moments that foreground communication and investigation technologies: a cop in San Francisco is disappointed when he learns that an officer in another precinct can’t “telefax” some evidence to him, the same SF cop pulls over to the side of the road to use a Police Emergency telephone, the obsessed writer fills his apartment with boxes and boxes of mimeographed documents, a suspect is let go because a handwriting authority (whose “authority” is later questioned) claims he can’t be the killer. Aside from the requisite, grisly recreations of three Zodiac murders in the first act, this film, which is easily my favorite Hollywood production of the year, has little in common with serial killer movies. Rather, it’s a fascinating and deliberate (I assume) commentary on our current cultural obsession with techno-forensic porn.